Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Further disputes

OK - I'm just writing here to recollect the current proper disputes this page. I think this random posting of newspaper articles and sources is not inherently wrong, but is not done is a well-structured manner and therefore clutters up the page considerably. So here goes, the remaining disputes:

• high-ranking officials - Node - the statement that many high-ranking officials recognise the language as Romanian is true. Many do not recognise this. So, the statement can be made to seem more neutral by saying, "Many high-ranking officials recognise the Romanian and Moldovan are the same, while others continue to ?use the term Moldovan language??" or something like that. It's also important to say that many government departments recognise the language as Romanian (this can be done by looking at their websites).
  • I don't dispute that it's true. I dispute that it belongs here. Please see WP:AWT. It should instead be something like "some high-ranking officials, including so-and-so and so-and-so" --Node 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please provide a supporting quote, to be placed beside Ion Morei's.mikka (t) 03:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A quote for the government departments? Well, there are no direct quotes, only sources to websites which say "Romanian" instead of Moldovan. The websites are: the Education Ministry, The Justice Ministry, Ministry of Transport and Roads, The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Office of Statistics, Department of Migration. Ronline 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• international opinions of organisations and governments - insert "There is a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example, USDoS and <> state that Romanian is the official language of Moldova" (where should this go?). Also, something should be mentioned about how various governments recognise that Moldova has a Romanian majority/Romanian is the official language.
  • You haven't demonstrated a trend of growth. "growing" should be removed until you can demonstrate an increase in recognition over time. Also, people are generally referring to the official language of Moldova. And which government officially recognises that Moldova's official language is Romanian? You've provided links to the Library of Congress and the USDoS for the USA, but these do not amount to an official recognition. Any official recognition of the status of anything in any other nation, in the US at least, requires an act of Congress. Otherwise, it is only on a departmental level -- thus, USDoS may recognise it, but the US gov't as a whole cannot accurately be said to recognise it. --Node 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Added to "official view" section. mikka (t) 03:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• the identicality issue - look, I do think that you can't say the languages are exactly identical in their official form, but saying they are near-identical does seem to imply a larger difference then their is. It must probably be said in the lead section that the two languages are identical, except for a spelling difference - e.g. "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)". I think someone (I don't know who because they never sign their posts) said that the difference is not larger than US/UK English. That is quite true.
  • It's not just the spelling difference. There are other minor differences, including pronoun usage and small syntactical differences. Donald Dyer elaborates on them in his 1998 publication about "Is there really Russian influence on the syntax of Moldavian". His conclusion is mostly "no", but he does make notes of notable differences between Moldovan and Romanian usage, only in the area of grammar (he doesn't touch upon vocabulary in this work; he does in others but I haven't read them quite yet). --Node 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  You yourself cannot say this about the whole body of the language. This must be declared by state's authoritative organ. Again, opinons of CIA and Ethnologue and others may be pointed out, but again, this identity was as much a political decision as the previous, Soviet one, decision to cultivate the difference in the "official language". But once the complete language roll-back will be declared, I am 100% sure that the language will ge renamed, and the issue will become void. mikka (t) 03:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  Well, what's wrong with saying "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)"? I'm not saying that we explicitly compare it to US/UK English differences. Ronline 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• the census language numbers - I have no opposition to putting them back. Are they really not official yet? I remember seeing, though, that the preliminary results showed a much larger amount of people declare themselves as ethnic Romanians and Romanian speakers.
  • It was not deleted, only moved down, since the %% are not official yet. mikka (t) 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronline 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Something I would propose adding to the Lingustic view section is about how Ethnologue recognises the official language of Moldova to be Romanian (since Ethnologue is a linguistic authority, not an "official" or political one). Ronline 04:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Based on the above discussion, I added a phrase in the intro that clarifies that (1) a separate Moldovan language was a political decision of the Soviet Union; (2) Today there is a strong desire to eliminate this distinction and (3) the whole country did not reach consensus yet. mikka (t) 03:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that represents the situation very well. I think, as you say, there is no concensus yet, not even in government. It's no longer an issue of "Voronin's government says Moldovan, the population say they speak Romanian", but more of "some of the government call it Moldovan, some Romanian, some of the population call it Moldovan, some Romanian". Ronline 04:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with (2) and (3) to a degree, but 1 is wrong. People have been discussing a _moldovan language_ since the time of Ureche. The whole conflict between Romanists and Moldovenists (or "Romanizators" and "Originalists") predates the USSR, which is proof enough that a separate Moldovan language does as well. Certainly, the current official language of Moldova, going by the name of "Moldovan", is indeed a Soviet creation; the previous "Moldovan language" of the Moldovenists was not so nearly identical to Muntenian (speech of Bucureshti). --Node 06:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem being that those "moldovenists", of the years 1930 were from Transnistria (the Autonomous Moldovan Soviet Republic of the time), a region that was never considered as romanian land, nor part of the principality of Moldova. As you said it, even today Transnistria is "de facto independent" w.r.t. Moldova. User:Dpotop

That is completely irrelevant. What matters here is that the concept of a "Moldovan language" is not new, nor is it Soviet. Soviets actually killed/imprisoned all original advocates of a separate Moldovan language. The concept is older than the USSR. --24.251.68.75 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement of User:Mikkalai is NPOV, as well as the current version of the article. I sustain it. It only needs some improvements on the english-language side. User:Dpotop 192.93.2.16 09:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the intro section should remain write-protected. Remember that we already reached NPOV versions that were immediately "updated" by the extremists of both camps. User:Dpotop

Acknowledge the problem

Submission by Rares 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a controversy which will not be solved to soon among governments or the population of Romania/Moldova, let alone within Wikipedia. Therefore I suggest the article - if it wishes to be a 'healthy' one - simply acknowledge this controversy.

I think people have brought good arguments about the nature controversy and the relevant facts (along with their references) should be included in the final article. After all, what can this article contain other than history, examples of differences and arguments within the controversy? I'm Romanian myself and am sorry for the political situation that has lead to this 'separation'. But we should focus rather on creating an article that acknowledges this situation instead of trying to prove that Moldovan exists or not.

I'd say that it's a bit strange there's a Moldovan wikipedia after all... but if there are separate sites in UK and US English, let there be separate ones for Moldovan and Romanian [though I'd say you'd get at most 3-4/100 different words in a Romanian-Moldovan translation]. But now that things have gotten so far, why not leave things as they are, but present the reality in a way as objective as possible?

I respect admins like Mikkalai who have done thousands of edits to earn their status, but I think it's not fair that he's the only person in the position to decide the faith of this article. You've got some pretty objective stuff in the version that's currently online, but honestly, do you think that a person that knew NOTHING about the subject would understand the scale of the issue? What's more, Mikka, do you realize that people might mind the fact that your [russian/bielorussian] background would normally make you favor the "separationist" approach? I'm not saying you've been a partisan, but think about this... [I'm not suggesting a Romanian editor instead either :)]

Regards, Rares

Hi Rares, your view is very refreshing. We need more people like you in this article.

Now, first of all, the major reason for a separate Moldovan WP is that it's written mostly in Cyrillic. If it were written in Latin, I wouldn't work on it because I wouldn't be able to stop laughing for long enough. (maybe, Moldovan translation of "enciclopedia libera" is "enciclopedia slobode"?? haha)

That aside, the reason Mikka is the one making all of the decisions in this article is thanks to some vandals editing from anonymous accounts. They terrorised this page, and people were no longer able to edit it normally with such a disruption. I think everybody here would agree that it would be better if ALL of us could edit this page, but in the current situation, it seems we should wait a week or two before unlocking the article. Ahh, also, AFAIK Mikka is _Belarusan_, not Russian nor Bielorussian. Some Belarusans would be offended at such an implication; Mikka might not be. And then again, he may have mixed ancestry. --Node 06:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I see people indent and mark their comments, but can the people that submit new headlines/text please sign themselves as well?

I am not imposing my POV here. The article was protected because of a histerical invasion of anonymous editors who reverted the article to a corrupted version. I am acting as bookkeeper here while the article is protected. I don't care what people think or say about my political affiliations. It these two years I was labelled anti-Semite and Zionist, Nazi and Commie and anti-communist, Russian nationalist. I probably have to start collecting the insults.

As to whether which approach I favor: I favor reporting facts and opinions from reputable sources, regardless political affiliation. And this is only what is allowed here while the article is protected and while I am in charge. If someone does not like this approach, you are welcome to file a petition, and I will be more than happy to do something more useful than to fend off trigger-happy kids flocked here recently. mikka (t) 04:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche misquoted

Ureche's chronicles say that the Moldovan language is of Latin origin, however I couldn't find any instance where he claims that the language of the Wallachians is the same as the language of the Moldavians. Please check the original text at [1].

I think whoever added that remark must have confused Grigore Ureche with Miron Costin (1632 - 1691). It was M. Costin who wrote:

Şi supt acel nume [Dacia] au trăit aceste ţări, până la al doilea descălecat cu Dragoş Vodă. Şi acum mulţi ne zic nouă, ţării noastre şi Ţării Munteneşti, streinii, Datzia, însă norodul, neamul locuitorilor nu şi-au schimbat numele său, că tot romanus, apoi cu vremea şi îndelungate veacuri români, apoi rumâni până astăzi.

[...]

...măcară că ne răspundem acum moldoveni, iară nu întrebăm: «ştii moldoveneşte»?, ce «ştii româneşte», adică râmleneşte...

-- De neamul moldovenilor, din ce ţară au eşit strămoşii lor

And under that name [ Dacia ] those countries have lived, up to Dragoş Vodă's second foundation. Even now many call us, our contry and the Wallachian country, Datzia, yet the people haven't changed their (own) name, they are still calling themselves romanus, then after time and long centuries, români, then rumâni, up to this day.

[...]

...even if we call ourselves Moldavians now, we still don't ask: «do you know Moldavian»?, but «do you know Romanian»?, that is, Latin...

-- Of the Moldavian People, Of Whence Their Ancestors Came

Note that I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quotation, it's picked off the net. If someone has access to a printed copy of "De neamul moldovenilor", a precise quotation is welcome. Iulian U. 04:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why Mark Williamson Node ue is not blocked since he made '''vandalism on my edits'''?

I have only one question: Why Mark Williamson Node ue is not blocked since he made vandalism on my edits?

Because you have duplicated your posts here. You're an anonymous user. There are a number of things you should do:

• Register. It's free. You don't have to give away any personal information.
• Try to make points on talkpages RELEVANT and CONCISE. So far, you have wasted oodles of space here, and made the debate that much more confusing. Now, while it's not exactly 100% acceptable, I've removed the vast majority of your posts here now as they are, as I noted before, points that were already made.
• Give links to URLs. Quote short excerpts. But do not copy entire article texts.
• Now, with that in mind, I hope you can participate in this debate in a civilised manner. Yes, people have already added the arguments that Moldovan and Romanian are identical, blah blah blah. Every time you add a new section on it, you're just wasting everybody's time.
• If you want to add back all of your repetetive and confusing text, go right ahead. I won't remove it again. But keep in mind that you are testing the patience of all involved in this debate. Talkpages are for discussion of an article, they are not soapboxes. Try to be brief, please!

I'm pretty sure you're not going to listen to me, B,but I feel I should make these points nonetheless. Also, assuming that you are the same as the other anon editor, keep in mind that it is your fault that the article is currently locked, according to Mikka.

Node 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Remaining disputes (Ronline)

I've moved everything here because the page has been bombared again by clutter.

• high-ranking officials - Node said that we should give names to avoid weasel terms. OK, well then maybe there aren't precise names, besides Ion Morei. I don't know what we should do with this one. However, there are many public officials who do recognise Moldovan=Romanian. Another examples is Education Minister Valentin Beniuc (see [2]). This should be added next to Ion Morei. Another person to acknowledge Romanian=Moldova is Tatiana Mlecico, ex-chief of the Department of Interethnic Relations, who continually referred to the language as Romanian (and was then dismissed from office) (see the same article)
• government departments - this should be inserted: Dources to websites which say "Romanian" instead of Moldovan. The websites are: the Education Ministry, The Justice Ministry, Ministry of Transport and Roads, The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Office of Statistics, Department of Migration.
• international opinion - fine, then at least this: There is a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example, USDoS and <> state that Romanian is the official language of Moldova" The growth was Mikka's idea, not mine. If we can't prove a trend of growth, than the statement should read "Various international organisations recognise that the Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example..." Additionally, there is the point about MS Word saying Romanian (Moldova) instead of Moldovan.
• spelling differences - Node, you confusing things again. We're not talking about the spoken language, but about the official standard Moldovan language, which aside from the î/sînt difference is identical to Romanian. What syntactical and pronoun differences are there? If they're only rephrasings that are also possible in Romanian then that doesn't qualify as a difference. A difference between official forms is if spelling differs, or if vocabulary differs (i.e. there are words not understood in Romanian or are different to Romanian words), or if pronouns are actually different to Romanian ones and could not be used naturally in Romanian, etc. Therefore, I propose changing "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)"

For the spelling differences read one more time the example given below "Comparison with german dass/daß". I think that proposal of Ronline to change the first phrase is welcomed. "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)". And regarding the spelling differences writing according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

• • No, I'm not confusing the spoken and standard languages. The subject of Dyer (1998) is the official language of Moldova. He notes in the beginning that although there are no less than 18 phonological features that separate Chisinau speech from Bucureshti speech, and also plenty of grammatical differences, that almost none of these have been incorporated into the official language.
  • The differences he noted: 1) Usage of dînsul. In Moldovan, the word "dînsul" (dânsul, dynsul) is used in a much wider context than Romanian. In Romanian, it is a formal/polite pronoun, but in Moldovan, it is nearly the same as "el". 2) Grammatical calquing (loan-translating) from Russian. Thus, the term mostly exclusive to Moldova, "cuvinte slujitoare", alongside the Romanian term (also used sometimes in Moldova) "instrumente gramaticale". The Moldovan term, in this case, is a direct translation of the Russian "slujebnie slova". 3) Moldovan tends to use inflectional constructions where Romanian tends to use phrasal constructions. Not a universal rule, but rather a tendency. Example: Mo: "sovetul deputatilor"; Ro: "sovetul de deputati". 4) Moldovan tends to prefer deverbal noun complements, where Romanian tends to prefer infinitives (in certain situations). Again, not universal, but a strong tendency. Example: Mo: "a incepe studierea"; Ro: "a incepe a studia", Mo: "a folosi pentru creshterea culturii"; Ro: "a folosi pentru a creshte cultura".
  • Dyer notes that the last two are marginal, since both constructions are entirely acceptable in either, and suggests that it's a difference in _style_ between the two languages rather than an actual difference in _grammar_. However, he does not discount the first two observations (regarding dînsul and Russian calques). In that same article, he gives a very long list of references which look very interesting and are a wealth of information with regards to the Moldovan question. Unfortunately, I don't have access to most of these books. I'll consider contacting him instead to ask for a basic summary, and perhaps invite him to contribute to this article, given that much of his work has been in regards to Moldovan vs Romanian. --Node 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronline 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to thank you Ronline. I agree with your proposal and I have changed to identical. I support your initiative. Multumesc frumos.

Nici o problemă. Just one thing, though - this page was better when it's protected. The thing I'm fearing now is that everyone will start adding whatever they want and there will be another edit war. While Mikka certainly did not act in too-democratic way, as seen by his bans and protection, I must admit his action has been very effective so far in mainting the stability of the page, and he has made use of the page protection in a very open and fair manner. Ronline 10:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Ron. You added some valueble info. Now, there's just one thing I don't get. When you voted for Node in the Mo Wiki, what were you thinking? --Anittas 10:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

(smiling) Am I still remembered for that? Well, I have always been one for neutrality and fairness, and I felt that Node's proposal in that case was fairly balanced in that it enabled a biscriptal wiki. I also felt that it was in the spirit of Wikipedia for users of Moldovan-Cyrillic to have articles accessible to them. I don't know what direction I would vote in if the matter arose again. Ronline 10:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is good to have consensus here. No time for jokes. Mark W. (Node) strikes again like a vandal. Someone block this vandal!

Well, his edits aren't vandalism according to policy. But, I think everyone, including him, should refrain from editing this page until it is blocked again. Ronline 10:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please block this page again!

This page will only work if blocked. Now Node is making multiple edits and everything will lose track again. I'm not accusing Node particularly, it's just that if everyone makes edits, revert wars will start again. The previous situation with Mikka was much better! I'm not a sysop, so I can't block the page. So, until then, I'm reverting everything. It won't work otherwise. Ronline 10:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

To the version before the anon vandalism, or after? --Node 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

To the one before. Ronline 11:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Then it's fine with me. Anittas seems to be trying to spread the idea that my overall goal here is to bombard this page until my wishes are directly committed. I've already given in on a lot of things, though. I only made edits to the page because it was unlocked, and I felt they were minor and reasonable. Since others obviously felt that wasn't the case, fine. But don't get the idea that I would like it better unlocked -- when it's unlocked, it's a constant target of anon vandalism. This does not seem to be resolvable in the near future, unless we could identify the anon and take appropriate action. Other issues on this page, as such, are not severe enough to warrant the locking -- it's only the anon who keeps reverting the page. But hopefully this will give us time to reach consensus. And since Anittas and his crew seem to like you more than me, could you please tell them to stop adding long sections about politics to the talkpage? Whether or not Moldova and Romania will unite to form Romania Mare in 15 years is not really an immediate concern for this page. We need to discuss the real issues that are going on here. The discussion of unrelated issues only serves to make the discussion more confusing and too fast-paced. --Node 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone block the vandal Mark Williamson Node_ue

Please someone block the vandal Mark Williamson Node_ue. He makes again inflammatory edits and he did not reached the consensus on the talk page first. Nobody agrees with his edits.

Protecting this page

I am protecting this page so content disputes can be settled. Mikka, please do not edit this page until the dispute is settled. Whether you like it or not, there is obviously a dispute between you and others. Go through the dispute resolution process if you need to or put these folks on the WP:ViP page if need be, but please don't edit while this page is protected. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

We have no disputes with Mikka. It's just Node versus the world. --Anittas 11:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, is that so? On this page, nobody has had any disputes with Mikka? The vast majority of recent edits to this page other than Mikka were by people who were 1) anonymous editors reverting to YOUR preferred version; 2) people trying to change the page into a redirect. FWIW, I agree with Mikka on almost everything. In the history of this conflict, you have opposed him all along. --Node 11:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Then go through the dispute process or put him on the Vandalism in Progress page or something. Protecting a page and then editing it isn't the way to go. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mikka is neutral and has acted very fairly so far. He was essential in maintaining the stability of this page. Ronline 11:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But again, if you want this Node person to be banned for what he's done, list it somewhere on the Vandalism in Progress page, have a different admin look at it and then they will decide what to do. That's the process. Putting "We should ban xxx" on the talk page is counterproductive and it doesn't get the person banned or stopped if he/she is a vandal. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You may support the Vandalism in Progress against Node*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Severe#November_2005

1) Report posted by an anonymous IP, in the wrong section. I am not editing from an anonymous IP. 2) Inaccurate information. The last time I used the word "koncenii" was a few days ago, that can hardly be called "continuing". 3) Edits in question do not fit the definition of vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Node 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! You recognized so you'll get banned! That's all, maybe you'll start being more cooperative, until now you proved how vandal you can be. If you course everybody will not get you more credibility. Banned with you!

Ahh, by the way, I removed the report from that page. If there's really vandalism going on, a registered user should be able to vouch for it. So, if somebody like Anittas wants to add it, that's fine (just try to add it in the right section). But it's a joke that an anon editor who has been reverting a page mercilessly against all reasonable consideration files a ViP against a registered user who has been editing since 2001. --Node 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so will he will learn to cooperate first.

So nu, you want I should be banned for a single edit you don't like? *sigh*. --Node 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, this feels like a content dispute to me, not a vandalism issue, but yes, if you list it on ViP, list it in the place where it goes. For Node_us, it would be either moderate, severe or minor user vandalism. Otherwise, read the Dispute resolution page. You guys might want to try a Request for comment. I'm not telling you what to do. Just giving you guys some options. I saw that Ronline is an admin on the Romanian version of Wikipedia. Maybe some of you guys aren't familiar with the English version policies, which I am sure are different. So...read the dispute resolution page and figure it out. Protecting a page and then editing it is just not considered ok here. It's a conflict of interest. Work it out. I'll keep this page protected for a couple of days at least to give you guys some time. Post a request for unprotection when you feel like you are ready and one of us will take a look at it, ok? If you have any questions, let me know. I'm here to help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and please sign your edits, even if you are an anon. I noticed that on the Request for protection page too...lost of unsigned comments. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, Woohookitty. Just a note, though - it can be argued that Mikka himself was never involved in the dispute, and I think that's an accurate statement. So it wasn't a conflict of interest really. Mikka protected the page and then basically said, "I will make edits based on suggestions of anyone, provided that they give sources". I think that was fair. It enabled a source of "moderated editing" which, while against the nature of wiki, progressed with the dispute quite well. The process was just about to finished, and after it was finished, the page would've been neutral. Then, and only after all parties were happy, the page would've been unprotected. By not letting anyone edit it now, not even neutral people, I think this conflict will remain frozen, and only re-ignite itself even more violently after the page is unprotected. That is why I propose letting Mikka continue making edits (since he didn't make any personal edits, only relayed what others proposed based on given sources). Ronline 11:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Go through the dispute resolution process. Doing it the way you were is not the dispute resolution process. Protecting a page and then editing is just not kosher, I don't care what the process is. The problem is that obviously, what's "neutral" for you is not "neutral" for Node. You can't just make up your own process for this. Use dispute resolution. It's what it's there for. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand, dispute resolution is for resolving disputes related to user conduct. This isn't really an issue of user conduct, but of content. What will dispute resolution do? If I come forward with three statements, backed up my sources, to be inserted into the article, how will dispute resolution solve that? Will someone insert all these statements once the article is unprotected? (By the way, I am one for always respecting policy and convention. Without respecting these, Wikipedia descends into injustice and abuse. The law must sometimes be respected even if it's counter-productive. But this case has so far worked very well without any abuse taking place) Ronline 11:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Dispute resolution is for articles as well as user conduct. Read the page on it please. Node, do you agree with Ronline that Mikka is an acceptable "mediator"? If you do, I'll let you guys do this but only for a couple of days. This is grossly against policy and I'm not going to let it go beyond that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw

Next time, if you want an "informal" mediation, use the Mediation Cabal. That's what they are there for. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this dispute will be resolved once a more neutral version of the page is achieved. Once that's done, if anyone else continues to add unjustified content, they should be taken to Dispute resolution. Ronline 12:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

IF Node agrees, I'll let this go on. I still don't like it though. :) Admins not editing pages is a pretty rigid policy. Here is the policy. it's pretty firm. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the proposal of Ronline. But it seems to me that user Mark Williamson (Node) will not stop his russian-revisionism. I bet he will continue to vandalise the page. It was finally agreed by everybody except him that we can use "identical" statement. But he immediately came back and made again vandalism despite the agreement made here in the talk page. Unless he will start collaborate first I say a blocking period of 6 Months will be good for him. Maybe so he will start cooperate. 147.26.148.42

That is not how we do things here. I signed your post for you. Next time, do it yourself. Using an IP is anonomyous enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the proposal of Ronline. But it seems to me that user Mark Williamson (Node) will not stop his russian-revisionism. I bet he will continue to vandalise the page. It was finally agreed by everybody except him that we can use "identical" statement. But he immediately came back and made again vandalism despite the agreement made here in the talk page. Unless he will start collaborate first I say a blocking period of 6 Months will be good for him. Maybe so he will start cooperate.

He (Mark Williamson (Node ue)) did a very ugly thing here. He erased the edits of a user, for covering the material and examples that demonstrates the contrary of what he is trying to prove. I think that this is very, very nasty approach and for this must be punnished. Otherwise he will think that he can continue in this way and nothing can stop him. Anyway he continues to revert my Report on Vandalism in Progress, despite the fact he annoy everybody with his extremist approches, and his unwilling to cooperate.

Sign now against Vandalism in Progress of Node:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Severe#November_2005

147.26.148.42

I removed that notice because again, it's in the wrong place. Post it at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/RU_Severe and sign it. If you don't, no one will look at it, trust me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ground rules

From reading the discussion, I think Node is ok with this since he said he didn't mind Mikka's edits. Try to work it out, but if this is not resolved by Tuesday night, I am going to unprotect the page and have you guys go through dispute resolution, ok? thank me because alot of admins wouldn't have let you do this. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC) -Me I agree with this. But look at the example that I gave you. We reached a consensus here. The line Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian.

-But after 2 minutes came Mark who reverted even if we agreed to let it so.

<personal atack removed>147.26.148.42

I'll be back Tuesday night to check your progress or if you are ready to have it unprotected before then, let me know and put it on the Request for protection page. Btw, 147.26.148.42, you have been told the policy a couple of times on where to put banning requests. If you disrupt it again, you *will* be blocked. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You won't have to worry about 147.26.148.42 through this process. I blocked him for 48 hours. He finally did put the request on the right page, but it was incorrect and basically just disruptive. Enough. He was basically just a vandal. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And to address something brought to me, I did *not* block 147.26.148.42 because he wanted Node blocked. I'm a neutral 3rd party. I came into this because of a request on the page protection page. He was blocked because he kept violating policy. His only purpose seemed to be to fan the flames of the dispute. Even when he attempted to put the notice on ViP, he did it wrong twice and then when he finally got it right, it was just a personal attack and nothing more. That's against policy. Period. And any other anons/users who pull the same stunts will get the same treatment. I don't care what "side" they are on. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

the most important phrase:Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian

We should add as agreed that this must be added as it is: Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian.

We should add what User:Ronline proposed about how the government departments of Moldova use the word Romanian instead of Moldovan. This should be inserted: Sources to websites which say "Romanian" instead of Moldovan. The websites are: the Education Ministry, The Justice Ministry, Ministry of Transport and Roads, The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Office of Statistics, Department of Migration!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

How _official_ Moldovan and Romanian are not identical.

I'm not confusing the spoken and standard languages. The subject of Dyer (1998) is the official language of Moldova. He notes in the beginning that although there are no less than 18 phonological features that separate Chisinau speech from Bucureshti speech, and also plenty of grammatical differences, that almost none of these have been incorporated into the official language.

The differences he noted:

1. Usage of dînsul. In Moldovan, the word "dînsul" (dânsul, dynsul) is used in a much wider context than Romanian. In Romanian, it is a formal/polite pronoun of the first degree, but in Moldovan, it is nearly the same as "el".

   Mr. Meyers does not speak well Romanian. "Dânsul" is not the very polite or formal. "Dumnealui" is supposed to be the formal one. bogdan

   It is quite obvious that Mr. Meyers is not an expert in Romanian language. Giving so many wrong examples I wonder if not he is an ignorant instead of "expert". Anyway he is confused enough and more he is confusing others...

   What Bogdan said above is absolutely right. So, don't come here with unprofessional proofs. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

1. It's Dyer. He's fluent in both Romanian and Russian. He is an expert in Romanian/Moldovan. Now, he didn't say that "dânsul" is the _most_ polite or formal, but rather that it is one degree higher than "el". In Moldovan, OTOH, it is almost totally equivalent. --Node 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Grammatical calquing (loan-translating) from Russian. For example, the term mostly exclusive to Moldova, "cuvinte slujitoare", alongside the Romanian term "instrumente gramaticale". The Moldovan term, in this case, is a direct translation of the Russian "slujebnie slova".

   why you can't find this expression anywhere with google...? bogdan 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

   The same reason you don't find "instrumente gramaticale" in the .md domain, and that its total results even in Romania amount only to 37. Not all real expressions in every language are found on Google. --Node 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Moldovan tends to use inflectional constructions where Romanian tends to use phrasal constructions. Not a universal rule, but rather a tendency. Example: Mo: "sovetul deputatilor"; Ro: "sovetul de deputati".

   well, in Romanian, you always say "camera deputaţilor", not "camera de deputaţi", so I'm afraid you're wrong again. I can't even find one google hit for "sovietul de deputaţi"... bogdan 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not "wrong again". I quoted it from the paper of an expert. He was evaluating claims of Russian linguists, and said that this one was dubious, and that if it _is_ true, it's a stylistic rather than syntactic difference because both forms are acceptable. --Node 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oh yes you're wrong! And Dyer is not an expert but an ignorant. It makes me laugh... Bonaparte  talk & contribs

1. Moldovan tends to prefer deverbal noun complements, where Romanian tends to prefer infinitives (in certain situations). Again, not universal, but a strong tendency. Example: Mo: "a incepe studierea"; Ro: "a incepe a studia", Mo: "a folosi pentru creshterea culturii"; Ro: "a folosi pentru a creshte cultura".

   din nou cu google, for that expression and you get one Moldovan and the rest from Romanian sites (including a transcript of the Chamber of Deputies and two newspaper articles) bogdan 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

   As I said in the next paragraph, it's a difference in STYLE, and a TENDENCY, not a concrete rule.

   Also, you said "all the rest are Romanian sites" -- wrong. 15 of the results are from .ro; 1 is Moldovan. Anyhow, that's of no importance because there is only 1 result total for "a incepe a studia". --Node 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dyer notes that the last two are "marginal", since both constructions are entirely acceptable in either, and suggests that it's a difference in _style_ between the two languages rather than an actual difference in _grammar_.

However, he does not discount the first two observations (regarding dînsul and Russian calques). In that same article, he gives a very long list of references which look very interesting and are a wealth of information with regards to the Moldovan question. Unfortunately, I don't have access to most of these books. I'll consider contacting him instead to ask for a basic summary, and perhaps invite him to contribute to this article, given that much of his work has been in regards to Moldovan vs Romanian.

He also makes some notes on differences of punctuation which seem to be outdated now ("odata" vs "o data"; "Andrushul-de-jos" vs "Andrushu de jos"), and are thus no longer relevant to the current situation. --Node 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes about dînsul, to prove it for people who don't believe it:

Yahoo! Search finds 4655 pages for "dînsul" and "dânsul" at the .ro web domain.

Yahoo! Search finds 353 pages for "dînsul" and "dânsul" at the .md web domain.

Ratio of .ro to .md is 13.2 : 1

Approximate number of sites in Limba Noastra at the .ro web domain is 2,610,000.

Approximate number of sites in Limba Noastra at the .md web domain is 192,000.

Ratio of .ro to .md is 13.6 : 1

Conclusion: Relationship between the two ratios shows that "dînsul"/"dânsul" is more common on Moldovan websites. This does not count Moldovan and Romanian websites that have a different domain, such as the popular planetamoldova.com or moldova.net, so there is actually most likely a much larger margin between usage in Romanian and Moldovan. --Node 05:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

WTF? You should search for "dânsul" OR "dînsul", you don't want those two to appear in the same page... bogdan 05:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhh... yes, that's what I did. --Node 07:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=d%C3%A2nsul+OR+d%C3%AEnsul+site%3A.ro (site:.ro) Results 1 - 10 of about 21,600 for dânsul OR dînsul site:.ro.

http://www.google.com/search?q=d%C3%A2nsul+OR+d%C3%AEnsul+site%3A.md (site:.md) Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400 for dânsul OR dînsul site:.md.

21 600 / 1 400 = 15.4285714

He-he-he bogdan 09:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant that as a joke. If you did, it's funny... but if you were serious, it's no good because Google searches eliminate diacritics, so you've got to use Yahoo! instead. And of course as you know, "dânsul" with no diacritic means something different... --Node 13:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to search with diacritics a word, you just have to put "+" in front of it. Also, when using "OR", google does not eliminate diacritics.

Results 1 - 10 of about 21,600 for +dânsul OR +dînsul site:.ro.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,350 for +dânsul OR +dînsul site:.md.

bogdan 13:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right! I'm confused as to how Yahoo! had such different results... --Node 02:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! That ratio thing is funny... using 13.2 : 13.6 to prove that dânsul is more common sounds like those detergent ads where the fake scientists come up and say "This detergent is 2.6 times more likely to eliminate stubborn grease". Anyway, Node, while I appreciate your research, you must understand that, as you say, the above are tendencies, not rules. Official Moldovan does not mandate that people use "dînsul" instead of "el". For the Moldovan written language to be different to the Romanian written language, there must be differences that are well-established and that couldn't be used naturally in Romanian. For example, say that instead of "eu" the Moldovans used "yeu" - that would be a difference. Or for the number 12, the Moldovans would say "zece cu doi" instead of "doisprezece", etc, or something like that. The fact that some figures of speech/words are more common in Moldova should be put in the Spoken language section. I'm fully supporting writing about how Moldovans tend to use x words more commonly, and y constructions. Despite this, as Bogdan pointed out, a lot of the differences raised in that article aren't backed up by anything, and are also commonly found in Western Moldovan (i.e. Romanian-Moldovan). Yes, you're right - dânsul is used more in Moldova, but it is also used more in Iaşi than in Bucharest. That isn't a difference related to standard form, it's a synonym that can also be used in Romanian just as correctly. There are two differences between official Moldovan and official Romanian, mind you:

• the î/â rule
• the sunt/sînt difference

However, putting "near-identical" in the article makes it seem as if the differences are much more structural rather than stylistic. In written Austrian German, some words are probably used more often than others, and they may not be found in German German, even though they will still be perfectly correct in German German. Does that make Austrian German and German German have different written forms? Not at all. That is why I propose saying that the two standard forms are identical except for a minor spelling issue (don't include this, but as an aside: the difference is smaller than UK/US English and PT/BR Portuguese) Ronline 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No -- you're really wrong about that it's "not backed up by anything". I got it straight out of an academic by Donald L Dyer. Now, do you use the phrase "cuvinte slujitoare" in Romania? If you want to dispute what Dyer has to say (and he was in that paper actually evaluating the earlier claims of Bruchis), you're welcome to take it up with him. Bottom line: I have used a reliable source to back up what I have to say. You may say it's wrong all you want, but it's sourced, and the claims are made by both Bruchis and Dyer. You are not a linguist, how do you get to decide what needs to happen for it to be considered a real difference? Hmm?????????? --Node 07:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And as regards the Google search, anybody who is accomplished in math would not see it as a comparison between 13.2 and 13.6, which it's really not. The intention is to show that, if the number of Moldovan results were scaled based on the relative size of the Moldovan internet, there would be 4,800 results compared to the 4,655 of Romanian. True, it's only a difference of 145 pages, but 145 out of about 5000 is significant nonetheless. This also doesn't include pages that say "dinsul" or "dansul" without appropriate diacritics, because "dansul" is an ambiguous word. This would, presumably, add considerably to the tally. --Node 07:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the only perhaps-relevant claim is the second point, about "cuvinte slujitoare". That shows Russian influence in the language, and that's already been stated multiple times in the article - that Moldovan has more Russian loanwords. What I'm saying here is logical - just because in Moldovan people have certain tendencies of usage does not make the standard form different. Dyer is not even alluding, as far as I know, to the official, standard form, but rather different patterns of usage between Moldovan and (standard) Romanian. That is already dealt with in the Spoken language section. I don't understand - are you using Dyer's claims to justify that "the languages are near-identical in their official form" should be use because the differences aren't that minor? Or are you just saying that there are differences between Moldovan and Romanian? Because there are, but only in the spoken or colloquial language, differences in usage that aren't more different than, say, the difference between Transylvanian Romanian and standard Romanian. Again, I think it's unfair to compare standard Romanian with usage tendencies in Moldovan, aside from in the Spoken language section. 145 out of 5000 isn't significant, I would say it's very much within the margin of error. I don't know what you're trying to prove with that anyway - even if Moldovans use dânsul more than Romanian, that isn't a structural difference in the language. It's a usage tendency - it's stylistic. The popularity of certain phrases doesn't determine differences between standard forms of languages. Here in Oradea people use "tu" (instead of "voi"/Dvs.) much more than in Bucharest - does that qualify it as a separate language? Ronline 08:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How is it that the "dânsul" difference is not relevant? And I assure you, he is talking about the official language. That should be very clear if you read the article. He makes statements to the effect of "For the most part, the official language of Moldova and the Moldavian SSR before it is based on Wallachian patterns, and only a handful of features unique to Chisinau speech are incorporated". He notes that these are 1) dânsul vs. el; 2) calques from Russian. Note that in this page he is talking only about syntax, he mentions that there are minor differences of vocabulary but does not elaborate on them as the paper in question is relating to syntax, more specifically Russian influence on the syntax of Moldovan, in its official form. It's not about whether they use it MORE or LESS, it's about the specific usages of the word. According to Dyer, in Moldovan writings, "dînsul" is used for a level of formality that would in Romanian writings use "el".

You said something earlier about a detergent commercial. That's funny -- Dyer is very critical of the idea of a truly independent Moldovan language. He even disproves or discounts many of the claims made by Bruchis, another American, who was himself skeptical. Nevertheless, he never says once that Moldovan and Romanian are identical, or that their only real difference is spelling.

He also refers in his paper to the work of Tagliavani, who in his book "Una nuova lingua leteraria romanzza? Il moldavo" (A new Romance literary language? Moldovan) concludes that the only differences between literary Moldovan and Romanian are minor orthographical differences, and dialectal and borrowed words which formed a small section of the vocabulary of written Moldovan but not found in Romanian. --Node 09:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

More specifically, here's a quote from the paper (all italics are from the original; note that he switches between normal spelling and romanisation of cyrillic moldovan):

(1) The speech of Chişinău, the capital city of Moldova, is a distinct, dialectal variety of Daco-Romanian... which has no fewer than 14 phonological features that allow it to be recognized as a separate and distinct "dialect" of Daco-Romanian.
(2) The standard Moldovan language... was not based on the speech of Chişinău; instead, it appeared, in virtually every way, to be based on Wallachian Daco-Romanian, the dialect on which standard... Romanian is based...
(4) The single phonological feature of the speech variety found in Chişinău which both differs from standard Romanian and which was incorporated into the Academy grammar of Moldovan in the 1970s was the monophthongization of the dipthong [îi] before nasal consonants [m] and [n]...
(5) As with phonology, so too in the area of morphology, does one see a single Chişinău-specific feature which was incorporated by the Moldovan Academy grammar into the standard grammar of Moldovan. In this case, it is the pronoun dynsul. The Moldovan pronoun dynsul (he/sir) has a less restricted use in Moldovan... than the same form has in Romanian. Whereas in Romanian dînsul functions as a polite pronoun of the first increased degree of formalness (after el "he"), in Moldovan, the general tendency... is for it not to carry such force, being ever so slightly more polite than el, or on a functional parity with it.

(end quote)

So. --Node 09:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How false can be stated an issue. Wrong examples given by Mark

Romanian word: dînsul/dânsul a comparison with the similar case of the German word: dass/daß!

Writing according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!

Romanian example	German example	English
Word:	Word:	Explanation:
dînsul/dânsul	dass/daß	the same word written according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!
vârf/vîrf	Fluss/Fluß	the same word written according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!
decât/decît	Regress/Regreß	the same word written according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%C3%9F#da.C3.9F_vs_dass	http://www.duden.de/neue_rechtschreibung/	Links for enlightenment

I will repeat one more time, writing according to a different rule, it doesn't create a new language for this reason!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte, we're not talking about dînsul vs. dânsul. We're talking about "dînsul" vs "el". This was raised by Dyer in an earlier work, "Moldovan: Part II" in which he more thoroughly examines many claims made with regards to differences between (official) Moldovan and Romanian. His conclusions about nearly all of the claims is that they're false, or that they're totally irrelevant (such as differences of punctuation). In addition, he examines in that work more of the issues surrounding Moldovan. I'm surprised you want to remove the opinion of somebody who so closely agrees with you. By the way, everybody knows that you were the anon vandal... --Node 11:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me tell you something straight Mark. I don't trust your so-called expert Mr. Dyer or anybody else who supports such rubbish and certainly not a kid like you either. In my opinion is non-sense to support a point of view such radical like yours since obviously you have no clue about what you're talking about. For me you're just as "expert" in languages as Mr.Dyer. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Age is 100% irrelevant here. Balamurali Ambati graduated from NYU at the age of 13, and went on to become the youngest doctor of recent times. Knowledge, and to a certain extent credentials, are what matter. --Node 06:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing Dyer references

I propose removing from the references section the books written by Dyer. I have not read Dyer's books, but from what Node_ue says, it seems to me that he's just a crank. He appears to have no clue in linguistics.

I don't think a sane linguist would take two random people, put them to translate a text from Yiddish, compare the resulting texts and get to the conclusion: "yep, we have two different languages".

Also, he uses made-up expressions such as "sovetul (sic!) de deputaţi" or "cuvinte slujitoare" to prove his points, which is akin to data fabrication in regular science. bogdan

Bogdan, Dyer did not come to the conclusion that Moldovan and Romanian are truly separate languages.

With regards to the parallel translation, he says "the greatest difference between these two texts are in the vocabularies and in the styles they employ. There is a more 'flowering' prose in the Moldovan text... to reiterate, the difference here is one of style, not one of substance".

Actually, "le style est l'homme même", as Buffon once said. Dyer starts from the premise that the style in each country is homogenous: it is not, there are much more differences between different individuals in the same country. His ways of studying language is just as useless as the way the Nazis studied genetics by assuming the homogenity of the Aryan race. bogdan 13:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's his point. That nearly all of the differences between the two passages are not differences between two languages, but just because two different translators.

Earlier, you said "...a sane linguist would take two random people, put them to translate a text from Yiddish...". Actually, he got these comparisons from published translations in "Romanian" and "Moldovan". He didn't just walk up to random people on the street. --Node 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The only actual possible grammatical difference he finds in the texts is Moldovan "pe tot ce vretsi", and Romanian "pe cît vretsi". There were very few web results for "pe tot ce vreti" (about 5), and one of them was from the Zdob shi Zdub website (a Moldovan band). There were no results in Moldova for "pe cit vreti"/"pe cat vreti". So that may or may not be valid. I personally would say "pe tot ce vretsi". But I don't know if it's real.

I suppose this is part of an expression, such as "jur pe tot ce vrei" or "pun pariu pe tot ce vrei". Anyway, both sound common enough in Romanian and sounds pretty subjective choosing one for Romanian and one for Moldovan. bogdan 13:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, neither of those expressions is "made up". He takes both from M. Bruchis' work, "one step back, two steps forward" which is also quite critical of the notion of an independent Moldovan language.

But can this author prove they exist? Probably not, since no google hits are found. bogdan 13:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bruchis, you mean? I'm sure he can. He's an expert, too. He wrote an entire book on the subject. Just because no Google hits exist doesn't mean an expression isn't real -- do you find any Google results for cit vreti%22+site%3A.md or cat vreti%22+site%3A.md? Or even tot ce vreti%22+site%3A.md? No, you don't. But that doesn't mean that nobody says those things in Moldova. How many results do you find for "instrumente gramaticale"? 37, and none of them are at .md websites. You can find the word "cuvintelnic" on Google, but does that mean it's really the Moldovan word for "dictionar"? No, Moldovan ppl only use that word when we're joking. (dexonline.ro finds 0 results too). Just because a term occurs or doesn't occur on Google, doesn't mean it is or isn't real. --Node 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"sovetul" is not a misspelling. Rather, it's a Soviet-era spelling -- "soviet" was spelt as "sovet". Some Moldovans still spell it that way although it's usually considered incorrect; however he is quoting the phrase from Bruchis, who published his work a bit earlier when the spelling was still accepted. --Node 11:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. Such an ignorant person like "expert Dyer" can't be called expert. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Please don't resort to strawman arguments to bolster your arguments. Professor Dyer has had years of experience in his field and has been published in peer-reviewed journals. If you can find published peer-reviewed journals that critique Dyer's research, and if they have relevance to Moldovan at all, then by all means let's use that research too so we can get a clearer idea of Moldovan's situation. I just don't think it's a bright idea to remove an established, current, and verifiable source just because it doesn't fit your idea of what Moldovan is. --Chris S. 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a book and most books are not peer-reviewed. And even some peer-reviewed articles and books are nonsense. See the Bogdanov Affair for a recent example. bogdan 15:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Dr. Dyer's curriculum vitae, one can see that he has written many peer-reviewed articles like The Making of the Moldavian Language and Moldavian Linguistic Realities. He makes it clear on the CV itself that he labels non peer-reviewed articles as NPR. Now, please don't rush to judgement without taking the time to read his studies thoroughly. I plan on doing the same when I have the time. And if you have any peer-reviewed works that agree with your point of view, then by all means shar e them. --Chris S. 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the number of publications and so on... does not prove anything. You can't evaluate one's performance after the quantity of the papers he published (how many kilo he published?!...). Only after the quality of his papers. And if all his papers are such non-sense, then.....he's not an expert.

You can't convince me or others with this kind of examples. And I really do think that is a bright idea to remove him since he is not a good reliable source. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Can you cite any studies that have established Dr. Dyer as an unreliable source? I'm very interested. --Chris S. 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously his examples prove nothing else that he disparaged himself being nothing more than an "ignorant" instead of "expert." I support the removal action to evacuate the text from dilettante like "expert Mr. Dyer".  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Throwing around words like obviously and ignorant is going to help convince me and others of why Dr. Dyer is not a verifiable source. You are going to have to try harder. I will repeat again - just because you do not like what he says, does not mean he is an unreliable source. --Chris S. 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade

The following is an extension of my recent exchange with User:Mikkalai on our respective user talk pages. The exchange apparently began because I wrote on the page Republic of Moldova that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language, and he objected.

Sure, there are slight dialectic differences between the speech of Chişinau and that of Bucharest (though I presume that any native speaker would understand both uses with no difficulty at all). And I am sure one could cite some similar differences between the speech of Iaşi and that of Sibiu, but it doesn't mean that they are speaking different languages (unless, of course, the person from Sibiu is speaking German). A few regionalisms might make a case for a distinct dialect. But a distinct language? Absurd, in the narrow sense of the word. Yes, it is relevant to have some comments in this article (Moldovan language) about regionalisms specific to Moldova, or even regional linguistic tendencies predominant in Moldova. But (1) this article should mainly be about the fact that the term "Moldovan language" is basically a term used by the government of the Republic of Moldova and a few other entities for what the rest of the world calls "Romanian language" and (2) without singling out any individual—this is a comment about the world at large, not Wikipedians in particular—it is very hard for me to believe that those who insist that these are two distinct languages are making an honest claim about linguistics rather than either engaging in sophistry, playing politics, or both. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No -- many Moldovan commoners call it "Moldovan language" aswell, especially in rural areas. Now, take a look at language. You must not know a lot about the spoken language of Chisinau, because there are more than "slight dialectic differences". The grammar of colloquial Chisinau speech and colloquial Bucharest speech are very different, the Chisinau speech showing creole-like tendencies in a few cases, as well as heavy syntactic and lexical influence from Russian and Ukrainian which are simply not present in Bucharest. Although Vasile Stati's arguments were mostly absurd, that is because he got many of his facts wrong. Rather than taking the things that make the language of Moldova unique, he instead took common features of "graiul moldovenesc", as well as some normal Romanian words with different pronunciations/spellings, and put them together in a dictionary of what he argued was a separte language. Had he instead used real Moldovenisms, like "sclad", or elaborated on features unique to the grammar of urban Moldovan speech, he may have had a better case, but instead he wasted what could've been an informative book on a load of sadly humourous crap. --Node 12:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There is good reason for why Stati did not consider what you call "real Moldovenisms". All those words are Russian language words. "Sclad" is Russian for "storage". The other "real Moldovan" word you used some time ago, "Koncenii", is Russian for "sperm". You can find this using any Russian-English dictionary (well, for the latter slang term you should use a slang dictionary). Do you think that Stati would have dared call "sclad" a Moldovan word, after what the Soviets/Russians did there for half a century? Recall that outcry when the Communist government tried to further push the Russian language. User:Dpotop

Your "many Moldovan" are only 1/3 of the population. The other 2/3 people recognize it as romanian. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Again you come with subjective opinions prooving in this way the fact that you really don't have an idea about what are you talking about.

Do you have a source for that 1/3rd? As far as I can tell, it's half and half, at least acc'd to Gardianul. --Node 21:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, certainly I will agree that the official literary language of Moldova is nearly identical to Romanian. However, some of the words found in Stati's dictionary can actually be found in Moldovan literature, but aren't acceptable words in Romanian. For example: "fatircă", "chibzui"... --Node 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, not again!

First of all, "a chibzui" (to ponder, to reflect, to plan) is a common word in all regions of Romanian and in standard language. ((Romanian bible search for "chibzui")

I'm not aware of any word "fatircă" and neither is google. (probably diminutive from fată)

But I'm now looking at the Dyer's text and I see:

Among examples of rather uncommon Type 3 words — words known from (Moldovan) folk sayings which are not attributable to any particular author — are the following:

So, it's folklore, it's not from any work of Moldovan literature. bogdan 00:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, "literature" is not limited to the written word - viz oral literature... --Node 09:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, make up your mind, dude. Can't you agree that they are the same language under different names? --Anittas 07:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Time's up

What's the status here? It sounds like you haven't moved alot. Let me know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

<personal attack removed. mikka (t) 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)>

Muntenian speech

Mr. Dyer said:

They based standard Moldovan on Muntenian/Oltenian Romanian, the dialects of Romanian on which standard Romanian is based. And so they just plagiarized Romanian grammars in effect, writing them in Cyrillic instead of Latin script, which somewhat hid what they were doing.

I only have one observation: it's Muntenian only, Oltenian has a few small particularities that are not present in standard Romanian/Moldovan.

So, we got the official Moldovan that is not based on Moldavian speech but on Muntenian speech, i.e. standard Romanian. Anyone willing to try to rephrase the intro in the light of this observation? bogdan 00:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but he says elsewhere that there are two differences: "dînsul" is on a functional parity with "el", unlike in Romanian, and [îi] is monophthongised to [î] before nasal consonants.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.75 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 November 2005.

>personal attack removed. --Node 06:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)<

How constructive was this comment? --Node 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

>personal attack removed --Node 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)<

The îi/i think is a spoken language feature not an official one. That goes in spoken language - while câine is pronounced differently in Moldovan and Romania, it is written the same. That's the important point - that the written versions are identical except for the î/â-sunt/sînt rule. Ronline 04:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No -- it's official. Well, it was at one time or another, it may not be anymore. But in the Academy grammar of Moldovan from the 1970s, it explains that dînsul is on a functional parity with el. Also, the official dictionary of the language published around the same time clearly says "cîne", "pîne", "mîne" and not "cîine", "pîine", "mîine". --Node 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Node, you're wasting people's time. These two differences are between the Moldovan vernacular and the Romanian standard language. Those two features may not be found in the standard language, but are rather widespread in Romania, too.

NO. You are WRONG. These are FOUND IN THE ACADEMY GRAMMAR & official dictionary. I have the pages that say it. --Node 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Câne" is a word commonly used in almost Romania, especially in Moldavia and Transylvania, but also in parts Wallachia too, although not in Bucharest-Prahova-Braşov area, which is the basis for the standard Romanian. I could be wrong, but "câne" was initially more spread than "câine".

Yes but is it part of standard Romanian?

"Dânsul" is more polite than "el", but less polite than "dumnealui". This is valid both in Romania and in Moldova. bogdan 19:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No -- in Moldova, dînsul is on a functional parity with "el", or just a little bit more polite. Quote (in Cyrillic, so put on your glasses):

Ун лок апарте ын система пронумелор персонале ыл окупэ форма дынсул. Еа есте трататэ де мулць ка ун екивалент адекват ал пронумелуй персонал де персоана а трея ел, ынкадрынду-се ын парадигма деклинэрий ка казул акузатив. Дынсул ындеплинеште ачеляшь функций ка ши пронумеле ел, карактеризынду-се прин категория нумэрулуй, ӂенулуй ши ынтрукытва а казулуй. Пентру номинатив-акузатив сингулар маскулин авем форма дынсул, пентру феминин дынса; пентру номинатив-акузатив плурал маскулин авем форма дынший, пентру феминин дынселе.

Пентру пронумеле дынсул ну есте карактеристикэ суплетивитатя формей, деоарече ел аре о рэдэчинэ нескимбэтоаре дынс, а каре се адаугэ артиколул хотэрыт -л, -а; -й, -ле. Ын привинца ачаста ел се асямэнэ ынтрукытва ку субстантивул.

Дынсул есте ун резултат ал контопирий пронумелуй векь ынсул, ынса ку препозиция де (де ынсул -- дынсул). Форма веке а пронумелуй ын каузэ с'а май пэстрат доар ын ымбинаре ку препозиция ынтру (ынтр'ынсул). Форма дынсул ла рындул сэу се поате ымбина ку алте препозиций, ка орьче алт пронуме персонал ла акузатив.

Пронумеле дынсул ну есте синоним абсолут ку пронумеле ел: Ачаста о доведеште ши фаптул кэ ел функционязэ алэтурь деформеле ел, еа, ши тендинца луй де а се ынкадра ын система пронумелор реверенциале, фэкынд пунте ынтре ел ши думнялуй:

Дынсу-й ла шединцэ, фата-й ла клуб, да бэятул, чине штие.
(Ем. Буков)

Е аша де бунэ дынса.
(В. Телеукэ.) --Node 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

>personal attack removed --Node 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)<

Node, I think you have not read and understood that paragraph written in Cyrillic, because it's saying exactly what I said. Here are the most important translated:

Еа есте трататэ де мулць ка ун екивалент адекват ал пронумелуй персонал де персоана а трея ел

It is treated my most people as an "adequate" equivalent of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person "el"

ронумеле дынсул ну есте синоним абсолут ку пронумеле ел: Ачаста о доведеште ши фаптул кэ ел функционязэ алэтурь деформеле ел, еа, ши тендинца луй де а се ынкадра ын система пронумелор реверенциале, фэкынд пунте ынтре ел ши думнялуй:

The pronoun "dânsul" is not an absolute synonym of pronoun "el": this is proven by the fact that it is used together with the "el, ea" forms, being part of the system of referential pronouns and a "bridge" between "el" and "dumnealui". bogdan 17:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Note particularly "Еа есте трататэ де мулць ка ун екивалент адекват ал пронумелуй персонал де персоана а трея ел". I also don't find your second translated section particularly accurate. My own translation would be:

The pronoun dînsul is not an absolute synonym of the pronoun "el": This is shown by the fact that "el" functions together with the "el" and "ea" forms, and its dendency to be included in the referential pronominal system, as a point between "el" and "dumnealui".

It doesn't call it a "bridge",

Then what does the word "punte" means? (hint: it's cognate with Pont Neuf) bogdan 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

nor does it state where it is in between. The first part is most relevant, "ea este tratatë de multi ca un equivalent adequat al pronumelui personal de persòna a treè el" (I like to spell things in deviant ways...), which isn't necessarily true in Romanian -- it's not an equivalent, but a parallel. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? In Moldovan it's a bridge between the polite "dumnealui" and less-polite "el" and so is in Romanian. Please tell me which is the difference. bogdan 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's change that problematic expression "near-identical"

We have to take into account that the official form is absolutely identical to Romanian not "near-identical". What we need for this article is to emphasize very clearly that despite their different names are identical. I've seen someone put it there deliberate with bad intent. Anyone approving to delete the word "near"?  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

How can you accurately judge somebody's intent? I don't approve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.68.75 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 November 2005.

IMO when everyone in Moldova agrees that they are absolutely identical, the language will be simply renamed, and the issue ceased to exist. mikka (t) 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions:

I completely agree with Mikka. I am from Moldova and know well enough what language situation is like there. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.137.148 (talk • contribs) 9:48, 24 November 2005.)

Really!? You know? And how is it there!? Other 2/3 people know very well what kind of language they speak and they don't speak "moldovan" but romanian. You may ignore me or Bogdan or everyone else but you can't ignore the self evidence "that are identical" moldovan=romanian. 3 millions have recognized that they are romanians and their language is romanian plus other 23 millions from Romania will know for sure better than you...As for appologize you will have to wait until 26 millions will tell you my dear...and belive me no person will agree with your "so-called expert" as long as he will say that are two different languages. However we have to go further and not stick to only one reference like Mr. Dyer, like him may be found many others soviet linguists and as I said he can't be considered as a reliable source as long as he gives such examples. I will add one more time the example with constitutions.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

False. Not 2/3 and not 3 million. 18:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the opinions of Bogdan and Bonaparte should not be considered, they have to be ignored. They are not competent, have neither any linguistic knowledge, nor ethics to participate in this discussion. How can they dare to criticize scholars having no clue about their publications and propose removing from reference section books they have never read ? I have known Dr.Dyer for many years. I am a linguist too . We have collaborated for many years. Dr. Dyer has had years of experience in his field. I know his publications are a result of profound research and linguistic analysis, many meetings and interviews of native speakers and well known linguists from both Moldova and Romania where he is highly respected. Bogdan and Bonaparte have to apologize... (Valentina Iepuri)(—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.74.137.148 (talk • contribs) 9:48, 24 November 2005.)

You can't ignore 26 million people, is very hard belive me. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Can we have a copy of your papers (one of them, I think, in collaboration with Dyer)? For instance, I'd like to read 'The Romanian Language of Moldova in the Post-Soviet Period' and 'Languages in contact in multiethnic Moldova: Ten years of the post-Soviet experience'. User:Dpotop

Oh yeah! It would be nice!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Let's simply say "Romanian and Moldovan are mutually intelligible." --Chris S. 03:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

False. They are identical.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

No, that's misleading. Many languages are mutually intelligible. Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible to a great extent. Moldovan and Romanian are more than that - their official forms are identical except for a spelling difference. So while we can't accurately state "they are identical", we can say that the only difference is a stylistic one - spelling - and not a grammatical or lexical one. Ronline 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible to perhaps only 65-percent. You have a better chance with Swedish and Norwegian. --Anittas 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, and I agree with Anittas about Swedish and Norwegian being more mutually intelligible than Swedish and Danish. But that's beside the point. How about, qualifying "mutual intelligiblity"? Like we can say "there is a high rate of mutual intelligibility." or something like. Or we can avoid the use of labels all together and say that a Romanian and Moldovan speaker usually have very few, if any, problems communicating with each other. Compare it with other speakers of other languages in similar situations. --Chris S. 05:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's say are identical. Any other statement is inacceptable. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

---

One more time the example with constitutions, as you can see are identical languages.

Second example is taken from the Constitution of Moldova and Romania. The identity is more than obvious.

so called Moldavian	Romanian	English
TITLUL I: Principii Generale	TITLUL I Principii Generale	FIRST TITLE: General Principles
Articolul 1 Statul Republica Moldova	Articolul 1 Statul român	Article 1 (Romanian/Republic of Moldova State)
(1) Republica Moldova este un stat suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) România este stat naţional, suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) Romania/Republic of Moldova is a national, independent, unity and undestructible state.
(2) Forma de guvernămînt a statului este republica.	(2) Forma de guvernământ a statului român este republica.	(2) The form of the guvernment of the state is republic.
(3) Republica Moldova este un stat de drept, democratic, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	(3) România este stat de drept, democratic şi social, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	Romania/Republic of Moldova is a state of low, democratic, in which the human dignity, rights and liberties...
[[3]]	[[4]]	Links to the official page of Constitution for both countries

As you can obvious see from these examples they are identical. We speak here about one language.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Romanizators and Originalists

I believe that the article needs to emphasize that the entire discussion between Romanizators, Originalists, and the Soviet leadership took place in a region that never was part of the Principality of Moldova. Indeed, the establishment of the "Soviet Autonomous Moldovan Republic" was done on land that never before was part of the Principality of Moldova (or, for that matter, Romania). User:Dpotop

I agree with you. Anyway we should replace this ugly expression by "Defenders of truth and Soviets, Communists, Russian Revisionists" Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte? What exactly is your proposal? mikka (t) 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dpotop, you must provide a specific suggestion, not a general desire "to make things better", so that we could reasonably discuss it. For starters, what's wrong with creation of Moldovan republic in the area of compact residence of Moldovans? Such republics were created everywhere in what was before the "unitary and indivisible, Orthodox Russian Empire", in its official parlance. mikka (t) 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose writing: In 1924, the Soviet Union made its first move aimed at creating a new Moldovan identity, different from the Romanian one. That year, a Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Republic was created on Ukrainean territory that had never belong to the principality of Moldavia or to Romania. In the new "Moldovan" republic, Ukraineans formed 42% of the population, compared with only 30% Moldovans. In this new Soviet republic the ingredients of the new Moldovan identity, including the Moldovan language, were engineered before they were imposed to the population of Bessarabia from 1940 to 1941, and then from 1944 to 1992. Jacky 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's quite funny. What about today? The official language is "Moldovan". And yet it's past 1992... --Node 15:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

a lot of IP adresses used by User:Node ue

In the last days User:Node ue had used several IP addressees. Among them are: IP (71.35.51.41) address from Phoenix, Arizona, United States + (24.251.68.75) Scottsdale, Arizona, USA (which is located near Paradise Valley and Phoenix), he may have used others as well.

Proof, please. In any case this page is not for chasing sockpuppets. Next time such comments will be removed as personal attacks. mikka (t) 18:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He used them to make again one of his dirty personal attacks, in a perverse approach Ambi's user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ambi#Why_do_you_constantly_reverts_my_edits.3F, and EvilAlex page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvilAlex. It wasn't enough that he labelled others as "konceni" (a russian obscenity word)("sperm") now he wants to make things even worst than that. We had enough patience with 16 years old vandal now is time to be blocked. We will not tolerate this kind of approach anymore and there are sufficient evidences to prove this and someone has to block this guy." <<personal attack removed>>  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

"Koncenii" is not an obscenity in Russian language. It simply means "finished". In application to a person it means "the one for which all hope s lost". Also, in Russsian slang the word "konchit" means "to ejaculate", i.e., "to finish sexual intercourse", which, by the way, is not an obscenity in its usage, but rather euphemism. So "konchenii" could mean "a man who just finished sexual intercourse", but is does not: "konchivshii" means this. An of course there is no russian word "koncheni"/"Konceni". So if "konceni" means "sperm" in moldavian slang, it is truly moldavian derivation, by those who got poor grades in Russian in Soviet school.

And exactly for this reason I left this offense in the talk page, as a jokeful demonstration that spoken Moldovan did have its own evolution during these 60 or so years. mikka (t) 17:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai, I think that you lie and try to mislead people. Here is the first link I found for the word: http://www.exile.ru/2003-March-03/the_words_worth_a_guide_to_the_zone.html . As you said, the word is derived from "konchit", which also has a non-slang meaning. But the word is russian slang, and was used as such, and you, a native Russian speaker, should be ashamed of trying to deceive people like this.Jacky 08:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that Mikka was trying to say that the word was also introduced to Basarabian slang. Anyway, to answer Node's question: no, I don't have any sperm for you. Why do you ask? --Anittas 09:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Romanians sometimes use "fuck" does not mean "fuck" is a Romanian word. Just that many Romanians have seen bad Hollywood movies. Jacky 09:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Time's up. Again

I need status from you guys. How are you doing? If I get nothing by 00:00 UTC, I'm going to unprotect the page and have you guys start the Dispute Resolution process. Up to almost 5 days of protection now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, if you were so insistent on strict policies, the page stays protected until a solution is found. I know pages sitting protected for months. I don't see the discussion finished. And I don't see editors flocking to add more new text into the article. mikka (t) 17:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes and as an admin, you know about the dispute resolution process, which you should've gone into a long time ago. Btw, you can edit the page. I have a feeling that got lost in here, but I said it was ok for you guys to try to do this like you tried last week. That's what the giving you until Tuesday night thing was about. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually he just put fan on flames. He didn't block the user who labelled others as "knocenii- sperm". He was not cooperative at all and he just reverted the text without any explanation. Until Administrator Ronline told him to calm down he was just supporting and encouraging this kind of approach. Just look at his history.

-Mark Williamson (User:Node ue) said:" Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! "

-Mikka User:Mikkalai said: "That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-)" mikka (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

-Mark Williamson (User:Node ue) said: "Indeed :) that was the intention..."--Node

With this kind of support from Administrator User:Mikkalai is no wonder that the things are going in this way that he continues to labelling others as "koncenii" like Dpotop, Anittas and others. They are continuing sabotagging this page. And still he was not blocked for a period of time to stop this kind of bad approach.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

You just don't get it, do you? "Koncenii" does not mean "sperm"!!! --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that if I ever find a page that is locked for several months I'll most likely unlock it. It means that there are untractible (sp?) arguments ongoing. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to unlock the page since we are here a majority of people who supports the same one thing:Moldovan is identical with Romanian. The majority of users are: Bogdangiusca, Ronline, Dpotop, Bonaparte, Anittas, Jmabel, Dacodava, Constantzeanu, Mihai, Alexander_007, EvilAlex, Mihaitza, Duca, Domnu Goie, AdiJapan, Gutza, Vasile, Jeorjika and many others! Or we can vote to state our version of the page.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

OK you've convinced me. It needs protection. But PLEASE go through dispute resolution. It's what it's there for. For the people having problems with either Node or Bonaparte or Mikka or whatever, they aren't just going to give up. Go through DR. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

About if the languages are mutualy inteligible or identical

I think we should say the languages are identical in their official (written) forms, but the spoken forms vary, because of the strong Russian influence in Moldova (in accent, expressions and neologism), in that that the every day informal language spoken is more a Moldovan Creole (pidgin language, I don't know if Creole is a good term, I saw that in articles about Spanish and Portuguese language), still mutualy inteligible. That way we don't refuse the conclusions of the census, those of the Moldovan Academy and the ones of the School Authority (Ministerul Învăţământului), but we also don't refuse the fact that Romanian in Moldova (Moldovan) has many Russian influences. My guess is that, if we use this on the second phrase, after saying that the Moldovan language is the official language of Moldova, people will unterstand the facts that Moldovan and Romanian are identical, but still the spoken languages are some kind of different, but still inteligible.

Still I should tell you, I live in Cluj-Napoca, Transylvania, where we have a big Hungarian minority. But always you can hear Hungarians speaking in Hungarian using very many expressions in Romanian. I hope I helped here. --Danutz

"Still mutually intelligible" -- and you know this, how? --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If one can found an apropriate term instead of Creole I agree with this. --Orioane 19:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's called pid-gin, not creole. A creole already has a stable grammar and vocabulary. bogdan 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I say to state that are identical and with this we save a lot of things. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

No -- the diagnostic difference between a pidgin and a creole is: does it have native speakers? Some characteristics typical of creoles are that they have stable grammars and vocabularies, but in large communities the process of full creolisation is longer -- innovations made by people learning it as a native variety, and regularisations they subconciously make of its vocabulary and grammar, must further be spread and regularised among all of the new native speakers. If you split a speech community in half near the beginning of the creolisation process, you may well end up with two very different creoles because the first native speakers didn't have an opportunity to talk with each other and form a sort of consensus of what proper forms were, and then to spread it to others. This is what happened with Australian pidgins from pacific migrant workers. The migrant workers had kids in Australia, and the kids learnt the language, but by the time the migrant workers went back home, the creolisation process wasn't done yet, so groups from different islands ended up with different creoles, even though they started as the same. --Node 21:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Graiuri

Graiuri

The "graiuri" (Romanian for 'speeches') are small local variations of Romanian. They usually include a some regional words and a specific 'accent'. Usually it's not hard to notice which "grai" one is speaking: in "banaţian" vowels are longer, in "ardelenesc" the stress of some words may shift, etc.

Now to Node_ue: most of the differences you found between "Moldovan" and "Romanian", were actually differences between northern and southern Romanian 'graiuri'. So, many of those features can be found throughout the "red" zone on the map, including in parts of Transylvania. I don't think that finding this kind of differences is very productive, since it is clear that the "graiuri" spoken in Transylvania are Romanian. Also, a few of the features you listed were found throughout Moldavia (all across "graiul moldovenesc"), including in Romania. bogdan 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Excelent argument!!! Bravo, bravo Bogdan! I accept it and I'm supporting this argument. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bogdan, if you'll recall, I'm the one who added the part to Romanian language article about graiuri!!! Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were referring specifically to the status of dînsul and monopthongisation of "îi" before nasals. These arguments have nothing to do with graiuri -- yes, they ARE features common to others besides "graiul moldovenesc", but they are ALSO part of the official language of Moldova.

Now, the big differences aren't the differences of graiuri. They are ones which are unique to R. Moldova. In Romania do you guys say "La mine fratele'i în armată"??? I didn't think so. Or "La noi drug'i concenii"??? --Node 21:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed. Bonapparte blocked for another week as the only one who fails to behave in a civilized way. mikka (t) 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)>

Again, are you talking about the official language or about the vernacular ? In the official language, it is used "cîini", not "cîni". bogdan 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Official language. In the official dictionary of Moldovan from some years ago, it lists "pîne" rather than "pîine", "cîne" rather than "cîine", etc. --Node 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There is such thing as an "official dictionary of Moldovan language". bogdan 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the scan from Dyer, that was a Soviet-era dictionary written in Cyrillic. The official Moldovan not longer uses it. bogdan 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? I provided a reference saying that it is official, so if you want to tell me it isn't, you're going to need a more recent reference saying so. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any Moldovans would actually write cîne in "official" writing. Do you have any references for this dictionary (I find this quite hard to believe). The fact that Moldovans say "câne" doesn't mean that they write it as such. Here in Crişana, we pronounce many words differently and it's never written down that way. By just doing a web search on pîine you can see that this is by far the most common variant. Does Moldova have a publication similar to the DOOM in Romania, which lists official variants of words? As to "La mine fratele'i în armată" - that could be used in Romanian. In Transylvania, "îi" is often used as a substitute for "este". So we would say "Fratele tău unde îi?" instead of "... unde este?". Again, these things aren't written down officially, and I don't think Moldovans do it as such either. You keep mentioning "concenii" - I don't think a Moldovan would write down concenii in formal written Moldovan. That it is used as slang is different, and that it may be written down in informal contexts is another case. Ronline 09:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no! I already said "official language". As written in the official Academy dictionary of the Moldovan language.

Now, I have a hard time believing you can say "la mine fratele'i" in Romania instead of "fratele mea'i". I'm quite sure that you'd be laughed at. The "i" part isn't the important part. And I didn't say that this, or "koncenii", were formal. They're just an argument against Bonaparte's assertion that Moldovan and Romanian are "identical", with no qualifying phrases at all (such as "the official forms are identical, but the spoken language..."). --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's already made clear that the spoken languages are different, in the Spoken language section and in the intro ("At the same time, there are differences in spoken language, most significantly due to the heavy influence of the Russian language in Moldova."). So, it's fair that way. I propose, however, that we change "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is near-identical to Romanian." to "... in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)". Ronline 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah! You have my support for this changing. But let's change it once and for good! Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Not helping!

Bonaparte, you don't seem to really want to resolve this debate. Rather than make constructive comments, you are saying the same things over and over again like a broken record or a parrot. "Identical! Identical! Identical!" -- we all heard you fine the first time, and the second time, and every time after that. Give it a rest.

Also, it doesn't help that you're constantly saying things like "he's only 16", "he's a vandal", or "he should be banned". You have said them so much already, that now you're just wasting your and everybody else's time.

If I really deserved a banning, it would've happened already. There are hundreds of active admins on en.wiki. Woohookitty and Mikkalai, among other admins, have already visited this page, and have dismissed all of your requests that I be banned. Saying it over and over again won't mean it will finally happen.

It wasn't you that you've been banned and blocked in 25 November? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Node_ue Apparently Node ue is not identical with Node ue.

I don't see anything about a block in 25 November. Just some old blocks from nearly a year ago (in December) for a violation of the 3RR. None before or after that at all. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You claimed I called you a Russian obscenity, well I didn't. I don't really know any Russian, but apparently you know less than I do, because according to my dictionary the word for "sperm" is "konchenit", not "konchenii". In Moldova, when you say "koncenii", it means a person who is confused or doesn't know what he's talking about. It was supposed to be ironic -- you kept saying that Moldovan and Romanian are identical, and I responded using a Moldovan phrase you don't understand.

Now, there are as I see it two choices for you: 1) Argue based on real facts, but without repeating yourself so much -- say something BEYOND "they're identical". Otherwise, people aren't listening to you really anymore, just ignoring you because it's so annoying. 2) Continue on your current path, levelling personal attacks at me, belittling me, and repeating the same old tired unsubstantiated "they are identical" argument over and over again.

Now, seeing as you believe I'm immature or foolish or something, I doubt you'll listen to what I have to say to you, but I think it's worth it for me to try, on the small chance that you have an epiphany and suddenly decide that from here on out, you only do things that are genuine efforts towards resolving the situation and proving your case, rather than annoying people and convincing them you are bad at arguing.

So far, you keep repeating that they're identical. With the official forms, it's debatable. But everybody else here agrees that vernacular Moldovan is very different from vernacular Romanian.

Of course I disagree. bogdan 14:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You disagree? So you think that vernacular Moldovan is identical to vernacular Romanian? Where are you getting this bogus idea? --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree too, so there's two of us, so everybody else it's a little bit to axiomatic. --Orioane 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples have been provided, articles have been cited, conclusions have been drawn, and everybody else has moved on. However, you think that somehow, by saying over and over "They're identical", things will change. You posted the Constitutions again. We already saw them. And yet, the status quo. Thus, do you have anything new to add here? --Node 06:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Node and his brilliant use of adverbs

Node states above: "vernacular Moldovan is very different from vernacular Romanian". Very different? Can you substantiate this rather POV statement? What you call "very different", others (including many linguists) would consider minor differences. It seems that your Point Of View continues to run rampant here, Node. Alexander 007 07:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's a statement that doesn't relate the comparison to context. A better way would be to put it in terms of mutual intelligibility. Is this vernacular so different that Romanians have trouble understanding it? I would say that in many ways, yes, especially the Russian influences, so it needs to be stated that way. However, most Moldovans can also speak without the Russian influences, it's all about the context they are speaking in (this happens in Transylvania too - when you speak to Hungarians, you use more Hungarian words, when you speak to a Transylvanian, you can use Transylvanian vocabulary and tendencies, when you talk to a Bucharest Romanian, you tend to "clean up" your regional vocabulary and speak using standard-Romanian words. I presume Moldovans do exactly the same.) Ronline 09:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To a certain extent. But then, people speaking Spanish and people speaking Portuguese can also alter their speech patterns to understand each other more easily, but that doesn't mean their vernaculars aren't "very different". --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be so picky. I understand the word "very" in the meaning "noticeably". And of course, this word would be inadmissible in the article text. mikka (t) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Moldovan spoken differs from Romanian spoked due to Russicisms (in addition to usual dialectal variations), whether you call it code switching or "language pollution". Yes or no? mikka (t) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Spoken Moldovan language is not homogenous, as:

• The vernacular of Chişinău contains a larger number of Russicisms.
• The vernacular of most of the Republic of Moldova is part of the "graiul moldovenesc" variety and very similar to the vernacular of the Moldavian region of Romania. Especially in the rural ares, there are rather few Russicisms. bogdan 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not just Chisinau, but Bender, and possibly other cities like Tiraspol or Grigoriopol. In rural Moldova, linguistic attitudes are quite different. Ironically, though their speech is closer to that of Romania, rural Moldovans consider their language to be "Moldovan" at a much higher percentage than urbanites. Now, country bumpkins in Moldova can be quite funny. Some will speak in Russian only because they think it makes them more sophisticated. Other times they will speak in Moldoromanian only because they don't know Russian or they don't care. Some will insert random Russian words into Moldoromanian speech because they think it makes them "cool". But when it comes down to it, they're just codeswitching, because the grammar isn't any different (as is the case in some urban vernaculars), and the usage of Russian is often arbitrary. And certainly, the vast majority of these people don't know enough Russian to really be able to use it, and at home they will almost certainly always speak a very pure form of grayul moldovenesk. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Moldovan official differs or differed from Romanian official in some accents and in some technical neologisms. Yes or no? mikka (t) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• There is a policy to eliminate the above official differences. Yes or no? mikka (t) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There were some differences in technical terms at the fall of the Soviet Union, but from what I've seen on Moldovan official sites, they already use the terminology of French and of English origin (the one used by Romanian) as opposed to the one of Russian origin. bogdan 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples please. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Like "computer", "TV", "Video", "Audio", "Mobil", "celular", "modem" and stuff...you know now all these... Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte, reread this please. I meant examples of the opposing French/english and Russian words. --Node 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys aren't talking about words like "mobilnic", are you? --Node 19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• What are other issues of disagreement? mikka (t) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, very as an adverb according to my dictionary has three meanings:

Very (věr'ē) 1. In a high degree; extremely; exceedingly: very happy. 2. Truly. Used as an intensive with superlatives: the very best way to proceed. 3. Precisely: the very same one.

Node's usage falls under definition 1, "to a high degree, extremely, exceedingly"... not "noticeably". Alexander 007 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK my English is bad. mikka (t) 21:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The official languages being non-identical

Node_ue, I'm asking YET AGAIN for real references regarding the differences between Romanian and official Moldovan. What you shown us are differences between the vernacular language which are not part of the official language.

Here are some quotes from actual linguists:

In August 1989, the Republic of Moldova instituated legislation which would affect language use in several ways. First, it mandated that the Republic revert to a Latin-based ortography. Second, it declared the official status of Moldovan/Romanian.

Grenoble, Lenore A (2003) Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Springer, ISBN 1402012985

[Soviets] based standard Moldovan on Muntenian/Oltenian Romanian, the dialects of Romanian on which standard Romanian is based. And so they just plagiarized Romanian grammars in effect, writing them in Cyrillic instead of Latin script, which somewhat hid what they were doing.

Dyer, Donald Leroy, author of various studies of linguistics of Moldova in a personal mail to node_ue (who asked for some clarifications)

[about Moldovan language during the Soviet era] Apart from a few lexical differences (mainly technical terms borrowed from Russian rather than, as in standard Romanian, from western languages), the written language was thenceforth indistinguishable from that in use in Romania and moves are afoot to harmonize the technical terminology of Moldova with that adopted in Romanian specialized dictionaries.

Price, Glanville. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. ISBN 0631220399; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK; April 2000

bogdan 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of any of these three quotes, when used in context. The first one says absolutely nothing about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The second one says in the next breath that there are however 2 relatively insignificant features which distinguish the official languages. The third one does say that there were differences, so it actually goes AGAINST the pt you're trying to make. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

So how is it?

I see you abandoned the discussion on my text, even though it seems you agreed on it:

The languages are identical in their official (written) forms, but the spoken forms vary, because of the strong Russian influence in Moldova (in accent, expressions and neologism), in that that the every day informal language spoken is more a Moldovan (either you use Moldovan, either Romanian-Russian) pidgin language, still mutualy inteligible.

If interested we could organize a vote. But I guess it should be a more special vote, that need a double majority, so first of all more than 50% than, also more than half of the three sides (the Romanian language one - I think users speaking Romanian that are not from Moldova at all, or moved away from there and are leaving in other places -, the Moldovan langauge one - users from Moldova - , and the vote of the international comunity - users from Russia, from UK, USA and so on). Also I'd like you to not take this issue personaly, we allready made that mistake when the Romanian/Moldovan cyrillic edition was launched, when we had or personally injuries (and I was part of that, but I recognise that when we chilled up a little bit, we came to a resonable solution). For the start I propose to not start the vote, just see how many people would agree with this. Please take this in consideration, after all we are not enemyes, but we are all part of the Wikipedia community. In the end, if there are no conclusions, we may end up to a majority vote, but I'll sincerly prefer that we unanimously pick phrase. I also wait for proposions for the change of the text.

Apropo, code-switching is also an interesting term to use. --Danutz

I have two objections:

1. The pidgin or Russified language we're talking is in Chişinău. In rural areas and towns, the Russian influence was not strong because there were few Russians. Most Russians settled in large cities, especially in Chişinău and in Transnistria.
2. Not all people of Chişinău use the "pidgin". The pro-Romanian elite certainly does not.

I would say something like this:

Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official (written) forms, but the spoken forms vary. While the language spoken in rural areas and small cities is similar to the one spoken in Eastern Romania, many Moldovans of Chişinău speak a language with a strong Russian influence (in vocabulary, calques and accent) to the point of becoming a pidgin.

bogdan 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan's suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with what Bogdan proposed. As long as it is stated clearly that Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official (written) forms I will agree.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I'd change it minutely -- The languages are essentially identical in their official forms, but the spoken forms vary to a certain extent in that the colloquial language of many urban Moldovans is a speech variety unique to Moldova, mixed to the point of being a creole language. If you want it to say "still mutually intelligible", I would say you need a source for that. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

WHY LANGUAGES? There is only one language: Romanian! We will let Bogdan version not yours. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Also, I disagree with the "a language with strong Russian influence" -- whether influences are Russian or Ukrainian is debatable in most cases. And in some cases, particular features may be original Moldovan innovations unrelated to external influence. --Node 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for two-three russian words you can't tell that you have a new language. However is not that strong influence, now with the explosion of Internet, American musics, movies, and so on...I will bet that they say "computer". But I really doubt the second phrase. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte, you seem to think you're in the majority. The majority here does seem to agree with you that Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms (although I do not), but the majority does not agree with you that there has been so little Russian influence on colloquial Moldovan. The Moldovan spoken in the streets everyday uses more than "two-three russian words". You say "I will bet that they say"... and yet you have been criticising me as having no credibility? It seems you are basing everything off of personal convictions and websites you found through Google. I am backing up what I say with references from books and scholarly publications, as (to a certain extent) is Bogdan. Now, if you're going to go around saying "I don't think that's true", you're of no help here. What you think is true doesn't matter if you don't have reliable sources. --Node 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fact is that majority yes agree with Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms. The reality and self-evidence combat your argument. They are identical. I will put again the example with the constitutions if you really just want to annoy people. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Romanian and Moldavian will be identical when this will be officially declared so. How difficult is this to understand? They were split officially and may be merged back only officially. By the way, the phrasing of politicans translated as "Romanian and Moldavian are the same" des mean they are identical. I'd say "the same" is a pretty much weasel word. How does the phrase go in Romanian? mikka (t) 01:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's well said. I also read the article, the explanation in there also sounds reasonable. No, I was not trying to convice you that this needs to be made a redirect to Romanian language. I guess the most important things are now to agree on the very fine details of wording, and to keep extremists at bay. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not to redirect? It would be so easy and we'll save a lot of time. Since we all recognize that they are identical we should take that option in mind.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte, the reason not to redirect is that it includes the history of the term, the linguistic and official views. This should be all it should contain. The information about the spoken language should be put to Varieties of Romanian article, since this it is. bogdan 10:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan we can make a new article in which this "controversy" to be much better explained. Suppose I'll write an article entitled Controversy_Moldovan_language and to add there all the history and stuff, and here just a link to redirect to romanian. I found my idea brilliant. (It was suggested by a friend of mine) :). Do you agree?  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

The prominent opinion that the languages are identical is already presented in the intro. What I am insisting is on the presence of a more cautious, again, opinion that some minor nonesettial differences do exist. I don't care that the next generation of dictionaries will sweep them away. But wikipedia is not the engine to speed up this process. mikka (t) 02:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I'm sorry, but, on Wikipedia, the scientific consensus is always presented as truth. Of course in the spirit of NPOV, we may present other POVs, if notable enough, but there is no question regarding the use of what scientists overwhelmingly say. bogdan 09:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Youe, you should be sorry: you are not listening to what I am saying. The scientific POV is already presented in detail in the article.

If it is presented in the article, why shouldn't we make the intro summarize what the article is saying? That's the policy for intros. bogdan 10:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of this bickering please add an explanation (preferrably by scientific concensus) why only 40% of population responded they speak Moldovan and why the language failed to be renamed in Romanian. mikka (t) 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

People believe silly things. We don't add explanations to Earth about why most Americans believe it was created in the last 6000 years. bogdan 10:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is already discussed somewhere, and if you have a solid census data about what Americans believe, this would certainly be a reasonable addition to one articles about Earth (Earth itself I guess is already large). Forgetting about people's vote, still, why renaming failed surely has an explanation. They didn't do it by secret vote, I suppose. Some arguments were presented, I guess. I would very much like to know them.mikka (t) 02:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, Bogdan, how embarrassing. I can't believe that a very small minority of religious wackos make non-Americans think that most Americans subscribe to this intelligent design or creation science bull crap. And no, we are not rich cowboys either. ;-) --Chris S. 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

More than half of Americans reject evolution. That is not a small minority. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but in the American national conciousness, the status of evolution is largely ambiguous. Many people accept it as truth while at the same time believing it to be false which is obviously a contradiction. Others reject evolution but don't nessecarily agree with young earth creationism (the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old). For everybody, there is a triparite division between "religion", "science", and "truth". Some people incorporate more religion than science into their "truth", and some incorporate more science than religion. Some incorporate exclusively one or the other. But the status of evolution also depends on who you ask. To Chris, coming from the Pacific coast (urban Cascadia to be more specific), the people who deny evolution probably seem far off. It is true that in most of the coastal areas, and other traditionally liberal places, nearly everybody accepts evolution. The people who don't accept it are indeed a majority, but their strength in numbers comes from the interior, the "country", places that are seen by many people in LA or New York as backwards or uncivilised, and certainly far away. To put this in perspective, New York is about as far from Texas as Romania is from Portugal. --Node 15:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because most Americans believe the earth

Mikka again. You may call them as you wish as long as you recognize that their official form is identical. Again Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms. Is not the name that we argue here. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms

Let's change it once and for good! We have reached a majority that agrees with the following sentence: Romanian and Moldovan are identical in their official forms. Now it's time to change in the text.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

The change was "... are identical, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)." Other than that, the article is quite good in its current form. Should we add a quote about Michael Guest, former US ambassador to Romania, saying the two languages are equal? That's been said. Ronline 11:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Ronline. Sounds good to me. Let's add also the statement of former US Ambassador Michael Guest.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonaparte, the controversy about the language should be explained here at Moldovan language article, not at a separate article. Ronline 11:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I agree since there are so many ignorants these days...Anyway I support a link to redirect to romanian in the first paragraph. Then all this history can be a little bit shorter. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

---

Maybe the Romanian version of the article could help:

Limba moldovenească ("Limba moldovenească", coduri ISO 639: mol, mo; Codul Ethnologue: nu are) este limba oficială din Republica Moldova. Existenţa acestei limbi ca limbă de sine stătătoare este disputată. Majoritatea lingviştilor specializaţi pe limba română, cât şi majoritatea locuitorilor Republicii Moldova care vorbesc limba română ca limbă maternă susţin că limba moldovenească este pur şi simplu limba română redenumită după criterii politice. Guvernul moldovean susţine că limba moldovenească este o limbă de sine stătătoare şi că a susţine că limba moldovenească este acelaşi lucru cu limba română este o dovadă de expansionism românesc. Limba este vorbită de aproximativ 3.5 milione de oameni din Moldova, din care 3 milioane o vorbesc ca limba maternă.

translated: :The Moldovan language ("Limba moldovenească", ISO code 639: mol, mo; Ethnologue Code: none) is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. The existence of this language as a distinct language is disputed. The majority of the linguists specialized in Romanian language as well as the majority of the native Romanian/Moldovan speakers in Moldova state (according to the census 2/3) that Moldovan language is Romanian renamed due to political criteria. The Moldovan Government states that Moldovan is a distinct language and that to say that Moldovan is the same with Romanian is a proof of Romanian expansionism. The language is spoken by three and half million people in Moldova, out of wich 3 are native speakers.

That's not a consensus, because as I see the discussion we are at a dead end, but temporarly we could use that because it presents both POVs, without taking a decision wich is the right one. I hope you understand the translation, I know is not one of the best, but that's my best in English. --Danutz

A very good version. I am surprized why Bonaparte did not go there and twist Romanian arms instead of here. Some corrections though:

• 2/3 is wrong number. There is no official statement from Moldovan statistics bureau. The number reported in press is "about 40% of Moldova population declared Romaninan their mother language".
• I would be more cautious as to Mold Govt: Some politicians say in public that mo: and ro: are one. It is unknown to me whether this is their personal opinion or they state the position of govt.

mikka (t) 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka you should withdraw now your sarcastic remarks. NOW!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Mikka I will you tell for the second time. Withdraw your sarcastic remarks now!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I am genuinely wondering why you don't propagate your disagreement in your native wikipedia. My guess is that over there there are more people who know things first hand. And what you doing here is called "twisting arms": you don't provide new facts, don't agree to any compromise, just repeating "the same language" under half of opponents' posts. mikka (t) 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes 40% of the population of Moldova, but in Moldova there are also native Russian and Ukrainian speakers as well as Gagauz and Bulgarian. So 40% of 3,5 million (the people of Moldova) is 52% of 2,7 million (the Romanian/Moldovan speakers). But so far I read, the procent is 67%. I'll look for newsarticles. --Danutz

Please look for newsarticles in serious publications. This 2/3 thing is copied mindlessly by many. My number is from Guardianul. mikka (t) 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Constitution

Bonaparte, I have heretofore ignored your examples of the constitution because they're silly and irrelevant.

However, if you want so much to use them, let me point out some differences that show:

Moldovan constitution -> "un stat"; Romanian constitution -> "stat" Moldovan constitution -> "stat suveran"; Romanian constitution -> "stat national, suveran" ... and 4 or 5 others. Are we to believe that these are all real linguistic differences between Moldovan and Romanian? That Moldovans use indefinite articles more often? Because it's clearly not true. If you want to prove your point, you should use a better example. --Node 19:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me all. What don't you understand? Where is "un"? You don't understand 'cause you don't know grammar. You don't see that in the Moldova case there exist not the word "naţional"? If it were then it would be also "un". What are the others?? Next time is better to consult a dictionary first.

You should use a better example to prove your point. And is clearly very accurate and true what I said. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

The identity is more than obvious.

so called Moldavian	Romanian	English
TITLUL I: Principii Generale	TITLUL I Principii Generale	FIRST TITLE: General Principles
1.1. Republica Moldova este un stat suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	1.1. România este stat naţional, suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	1.1. Romania/Republic of Moldova is a national, sovreign, unity united and undestructible indivisible state.
1.2. Forma de guvernămînt a statului este republica.	1.2. Forma de guvernământ a statului român este republica.	1.2. The form of the guvernment government of the state is republic.
1.3. Republica Moldova este un stat de drept, democratic, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile lui libera dezvoltare a personalităţii umane, dreptatea şi pluralismul politic reprezintă valori supreme şi sînt garantate.	1.3. România este stat de drept, democratic şi social, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile cetăţenilor, libera dezvoltare a personalităţii umane, dreptatea şi pluralismul politic reprezintă valori supreme, în spiritul tradiţiilor democratice ale poporului român şi idealurilor Revoluţiei din decembrie 1989, şi sunt garantate.	1.3. Romania/Republic of Moldova is a state of low law, democratic and social, in which the human dignity, rights and liberties...
1.4. nu are!	1.4. Statul se organizează potrivit principiului separaţiei şi echilibrului puterilor - legislativă, executivă şi judecătorească - în cadrul democraţiei constituţionale	1.4. The state is organised on the principle of separation of powers -- legislative, executive, and judicial...
1.5. nu are!	1.5. În România, respectarea Constituţiei, a supremaţiei sale şi a legilor este obligatorie.	...
2.1. Suveranitatea naţională aparţine poporului Republicii Moldova, care o exercita în mod direct şi prin organele sale reprezentative, in formele stabilite de Constituţie.	2.1. Suveranitatea naţională aparţine poporului român, care o exercită prin organele sale reprezentative, constituite prin alegeri libere, periodice şi corecte, precum şi prin referendum.	The national sovreignity of the people of ..., which is excercised...
[[5]]	[[6]]	Links to the official page of Constitution for both countries

As you can obvious see from these examples they are identical. We speak here about one language.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I've highlighted the words which aren't present in the Romanian version. Now, they're not real linguistic differences, but it just goes to show you that your usage of the constitutions is a bad idea because the texts aren't identical in form. Also, your English translation sucks! --Node 23:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Not my English translation but your understanding of Romanian sucks! If you really don't want to understand is your problem. It seems that you have done something similar at zlatiborian and you have a kind of passion to make only troubles. Proof: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-November/author.html  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

No -- your English is really bad, you use nouns where you should use adjectives ("unity"), and make lots of egregious misspellings ("a state of low"), and use nonexistant words ("undestructible"). Also, I think it's quite humourous that you accuse me of removing information -- you switched back the flag to the Romanian one which is incorrect (not the flag of Moldova), you removed some parts of the constitution which I added, and you removed all of my corrections to your poor spelling and grammar in the translation. --Node 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Guys the languages are identical. I do not understand why Node-ue and mikka are trying to put in so much effort and time into proving that Moldovan and Romanian are different languages.

Also, I have a question. It says here that there are 1.2 million "Moldovan" speakers. I was just curious if somebody has a reliable source about that? Where does the number 1.2 million actually appear?

The 55%-45% is from a newspaper, I know that. However there is a great flaw if those percentiles have been translated into numbers. Also it is wrong to believe that every single person that declared themselves Moldovan by nationality(assuming that those results where right which is very doubtful)also said they speak either Romanian or Moldovan. It is very unlikely that 76.1% actually said they speak "Moldovan". A lot of Moldovans speak Russian rather then Romanian/Moldovan. The article in question didn't say anything about 55% saing they spoke Romanian and 45% spoke "Moldovan". It only said that 55% of those that declared themselves "Moldovans" said they spoke Romanian. That is it. To that one must add the 2.1% people that said they are "Romanians" who most likely also said they speak Romanian. This leaves 45% of "Moldovan-speakers" and Russian-speaking "Moldovans". Nowhere is there a mentioning of 1.2 mil Moldovan speakers and to insinuate this seems to me a little premature since no official data exists and it also seems a little POV.

I think that to have a language box is rather premature here. This article should focus on rather how Moldovan is similar and where it is different from Romanian and should let the reader determine if "Moldovan" is a real language or not.

The map with red and blue zones with the Romanian "graiuri" would be helpful here. Also a more neutral mediation would likewise be more neutral as well.

Constantzeanu 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What you, and Anittas, Dpotop, Bonaparte, Duca, and Goie before you, have failed to see, is that "POV" doesn't just mean "an opinion with which you disagree". It means any opinion. Thus, to state on the page "Moldovan and Romanian are the same language" is just as POV as if we were to say "Moldovan and Romanian are separate languages". It is our job to document, not judge, thus we can say "Ion Morei declared them to be the same; Vasile Stati declared them to be different, ##% of Moldovan people this or that..." but not "The truth is that they are the same" or "The truth is that they are not the same".

Now, the map of Romanian "graiuri" promotes the POV that Moldovan is part of Romanian, which is far from universal (on the contrary, nearly half of Moldovan-nationality speakers of Limba Noastra consider themselves as speaking "Moldovan", especially those from rural areas), as it shows Rep. Moldova (including Gagauz, Ukrainian, and Russian-majority areas) as speaking the Romanian language. This is not a neutral assertion. "A more neutral mediation" is fine, as long as if by "neutral" you mean "neutral" and not "a mediation which agrees with my version", as many people often do. As a side note, I really do wish Iulian U would come back. --Node 08:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

(Side note:) "…especially those from rural areas…": at least a bit ironic, given that the case you have been making is that it is precisely the urban dialect of Chişinau that is distinct. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Joe, I've noted that irony actually. However, most urban Moldovans do consider the colloquial speech of the urban areas to be different; some consider it a different language, others a dialect.

There seems to be a sort of semantic division between "moldoveneasca", referring to the official formal language, and "moldoveneshte", referring to the urban colloquial language. Not universal, but a widely observable pattern. So while Moldovans are pretty much equally divided as to the status of "moldoveneasca" in regards to Romanian, most will agree that there are differences between "moldoveneshte" and Romanian, although they will disagree on their nature -- some will say they're just speaking bad Moldovan/Romanian, others will say it's slang, others consider it interesting, some think it's humourous... but from what I've heard, people who speak this way are considered in Romania (Iasi more specifically) to be speaking a substandard Romanian. --Node 02:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Vasile Stati (the author of the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary)

Here is an interview with the famous Vasile Stati, the one who supports the Moldovan language to the point of writing the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary. URL: http://www.vremea.net/news/2005-01-13/18:45:35.html Here is just one excerpt, the one I prefer:

Incontestabil, forma literară, cea mai elevată a limbii moldoveneşti, forma cultă, prelucrată de scriitori şi lingvişti, este identică cu forma literară a limbii româneşti.

Translation: Undisputedly, the literary form, the most elevated form of the Moldovan language, the cult form, used by writers and linguists, is identical to the literary form of Romanian.

I'll let you read the rest (in Romanian), which is interesting, especially when it talks about its sources. Beware, however, it's a nice piece of Soviet style politics and "mauvaise foi", to the point of incriminating "the payed agents of Romania".

The guy essentially says that "Moldovan is Romanian. The spoken language is a bit (but not much) different. Nonetheless, we have the right to call it Moldovan if we want to". I would very much agree to base the current article on this position (this is exactly what I've been trying to do all along).

What is funny is that it takes an american to be more Moldovenist than Vasile Stati. :D User:Dpotop128.93.62.28 15:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin

"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin referring to Romanians from Moldova. This is what is still going on here on this page. Russification still continues. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+md0027)) Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Bonapparte blocked for persistent enflaming this talk page in blatant and conscious violation of WP:Civility. mikka (t) 22:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FUI, Stalin did not say this, the provided link does not say this, although it is full of deliberate or uninitentional falsehoods and misleadingly phrased statements. Now I know where this silly rumor comes from that Soviets declared Moldovan to be Slavic language. mikka (t) 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte blocked

I disagree with your blocking. I think you seriously need to chill down. Wiki is not a police state. Yes, he's annoying at times, but you don't block people for saying what they thought Stalin said. If it helps, listen to the Beatles when reading this talkpage. --Anittas 01:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I can care less about Stalin. What do you think: I am Stalinist? The problem is his second sentence. Wiki is not a police state. Wiki is not a democracy. Still, when people disrupt work of other people and consciously and persistently assault them, it is intolerable. There are tough heads, who nevertheless contribute to wikipedia. And example for my case would be user:AndriyK. He is currently under arbitration for pushing nationalist Ukrainian agenda too hard, but I chose not to speak against him despite serious disagreements and several heated exchanges, because I respect his contributions. Please evaluate the comparative weight of Bonaparte's addition of new data within his whole activity. So either you explain your fellow countryman to behave in a civilized way, or he is on the way to be banned for good, and this time not by me, so that you will not have a lame excuse that since I edited this page I have no rights to stop a troll. "Russification still continues". Please explain the meaning and the purpose of his phrase. mikka (t) 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the article linked to does not say this, and yes, claiming things requires references. And yes, Bonaparte is one of the most annoying people I encountered on Wikipedia.

However, mikka, I think it was wrong to block Bonaparte, and for 48 hours, for using the talk page of an article you are involved in a dispute in. And no, I don't see any big violations of WP:Civility above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes , this is a big violation of civility. In the place where people are supposed to find a common solution, his main activity is to enflame people. This comment is far from being a single outburst, in a heat of quarrel. It is a deliberate, continued, carefully prepared slander of fellow wikipedians, which he obviously does not consider fellows, rather enemies. mikka (t) 22:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, 48 hours is too much. And again, it's a talk page. The best solution would be to just ignore this above paragraph about Stalin, I would think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Please look into the archive of this page. It is 90% slander. Imagine someone wants to find something useful; some opinion for some other dispute. To read this archive is waste of time. It is in fact violation of two policies, not one: both civility and usage of talk pages. It is one thing a person in a heat of real dispute calls someone else moron from time to time. It is understandable and forgiveable (provided apologies later). But it is totally different issue to fill a talk page with slander and copies of one and the same phrase for weeks. mikka (t) 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am not involved in dispute here. I am involved in making this dispute civilized. I came here amidst a revert war with floods of badmouthing, with paticipation of a flock of anon accounts. Before going to bed you may read archives of this talk page. Among these "edits" were deletion of this article and replacement it with a redirect, guess who support this idea of common work? The only thing I insist here is to make room to the point that does not match the aggressive stance of Bonapparte.

Bonaparte claims that he is with majority as to the point of view. For some strange reason I have nothing to say against the rest of this majority. Even if they would insist on the ultimate phrasing that Moldovan language does not exist, at least they behave in a civilized way. And I can easily find a common language with them, see, eg.,Talk:Daco-Romanian mikka (t) 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, let us hope that one will focus on constructive discussion only from now on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am not so hard-lined bureaucrat as you may think. A couple days ago I blocked Bonaparte for exactly same behavior. Then at his talk page he complained that Node ue attacked him at this page. So I unblocked him, commenting that I am doing this so that he could answer the accusations of Node ue (in #Not helping!). But he quickly forgot what he wanted, not adding a word of comment there and proceeded with this next trolling. mikka (t) 02:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the "rest of the majority" has something to say against you. Which is worse. I still maintain that you use admin powers in a biased way. The behavior of User:Bonaparte is in my view just a consequence of the way your manage this page. And, even if you forget about Bonaparte, Anittas, and if you want even me, you will see that User:Node ue was in conflict with virtually every other contributor (including User:Ronline, and others). And it is you who let this incivility go on to the point where people have no other means of expressing their oppinion. No wonder some of them resort to vandalism. User:Dpotop

I would suggest you to read all talk page archives and then decide about the origin of bonaparte behavior. When I first came to this page it was not node ue who thoroughly vandalized the page. If you don't like node ue, the proper way would be to using WP:RFC, rather than deleting this page and replacing it with a redirect. mikka (t) 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I never deleted a page, nor seen someone doing it in the last few weeks. User:Dpotop

Let's be Moldovan extremists

You did not answer, do you agree on basing this article on the position of Stati, which is a raging moldovenist, seen as an extremist by many? It's funny to see that User:Node ue and User:Mikkalai sustain an even more extreme position than this guy. User:Dpotop

Please explain me which extreme position in your opinion I hold? What exactly is the disagreement betwen you and me? Please quote any my statement here and tell me what is wrong with it. In other words, please discuss the aricle, not me. mikka (t) 09:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You may start from checking whose position was moved forward during the period of my page protection: node ue or annitas. mikka (t) 09:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka has been fair but tough administator here, and while there's some parts he may have stepped over the line and even breached policy, I think he's acted fairly and in good interest. I don't agree with his blocking of Bonaparte, but I don't think he's involved here for ideological reasons. As he consistently said that he believes Moldovan will soon be renamed to Romanian, I don't see him at all as Moldovenist (like Node is, for example). And, his page protection brought about peace for this page. Ronline 10:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka has been fair and tough in blocking Bonaparte and Anittas. However, he did not intervene when Node breached policies. This is called selective enforcement of rules, and is the mother of all discrimination. I have never said that Mikka did vandalism, and I have always appreciated him for accepting compromise as an editor. User:Dpotop

Also, please note that I would accept the current version of the article, even though it mainly says what Stati says. I fear, however, that once this article is unblocked, Node will change it again, and with impunity, to make it even more extreme (as he always did in the past, from the moment I came on this page). Therefore, I would like to have a clear statement about this, from Mikka, saying that he will keep the spirit of the article unchanged, even against changes from Node. And that he will take into account and enforce suggestions coming from the other side. User:Dpotop

I know where you have got this idea that node is my buddy and I will not discuss this silliness. Just look into Talk:Moldovan language/archive04 and the page history of Daco-Romanian. mikka (t) 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So you refuse to do it. I expected no less. FYI, I never said he is your "buddy", just that you never apply the policies towards him. As to my "idea", I got it in over one month of editing this page in a civilized way. User:Dpotop

Changes once the page in unprotected

When will the page be unprotected? Hopefully, once that's done, it won't be flooded with changes and won't descend into a revert war. I propose the following changes, done in a clean, sourced way:

• the identicality issue
• the quote by Michael Guest stating that Romanian=Moldovan
• the Vasile Stati stuff from above (his quotes, if they're true).

And, also the issues left behind from above:

• high-ranking officials - Node said that we should give names to avoid weasel terms. OK, well then maybe there aren't precise names, besides Ion Morei. I don't know what we should do with this one. However, there are many public officials who do recognise Moldovan=Romanian. Another examples is Education Minister Valentin Beniuc (see [7]). This should be added next to Ion Morei. Another person to acknowledge Romanian=Moldova is Tatiana Mlecico, ex-chief of the Department of Interethnic Relations, who continually referred to the language as Romanian (and was then dismissed from office) (see the same article)
• government departments - this should be inserted: Dources to websites which say "Romanian" instead of Moldovan. The websites are: the Education Ministry, The Justice Ministry, Ministry of Transport and Roads, The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Office of Statistics, Department of Migration.
• international opinion - fine, then at least this: There is a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example, USDoS and <> state that Romanian is the official language of Moldova" The growth was Mikka's idea, not mine. If we can't prove a trend of growth, than the statement should read "Various international organisations recognise that the Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example..." Additionally, there is the point about MS Word saying Romanian (Moldova) instead of Moldovan.

  You don't have to prove evident things. What do you think: they all convened and on the same day said "no" to moldovan? Of course, they aceepted this one by one. mikka (t) 10:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  What's the point to quote silliness of MS? Are they hinting that Romanian (Moldova) differs from Romanian (Romania)? mikka (t) 10:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's about it. Thanks, Ronline 10:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm sure any diplomatic envoy to Romania would give a similar statement if pressed. Diplomats say many things to appease the countries to which they serve as envoys. (this is regarding Michael Guest) and hopefully Anittas will not make any strange comments about Guest
2. At the same time, I'm sure there are officials who declare the exact opposite. Their names should be included aswell. You can't claim that no officials say this -- if that were the case, "Romanian" would be the official language of Rep Moldova
3. The question is, how many of those websites use a Moldovan national symbol along with the name "Romanian"? Some Japanese gov't pages are offered in Chinese, but that doesn't mean that Chinese is a national language of Japan. For those which don't use a flag or other national symbol to identify the language as that of Moldova, it should simply be said that those sites offer a "Romanian" version but not a "Moldovan" version, rather than "instead of".
4. "Various international organisations" is a weasel term, even though there are examples. Instead, say "The following international organisations"... Similarly, you can't say on Romania "Many people say that Romania is superior to all other countries, including Person McPherson, Man McMann, Dominic Guy, and Ion Barbuta" even if you have quotes for all these people, instead you have to say "Person McPherson, Man McMann, Dominic Guy, and Ion Barabuta have declared Romania to be superior to all other countries".
5. Although MS Word is relatively significant in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, it's certainly not worthy of inclusion in any article about a language. Language software in MS Word has many errors and omissions. Microsoft are not language experts, nor are they prominent Moldovans. They also have a spellchecker for "Russian (Moldova)", which is quite funny considering there are 0 differences between the Russian used in Moldovan official documents and that used in Russian official documents considering often the translators come directly from Moscow (yes, most gov't documents of Moldova are published in Russian even though it's not an official language).
6. Anything that says that somebody or something "recognises" that something is true implies that they have discovered the truth in a true statement -- I for one wouldn't say "John recognises that god really does exist" because I'm an atheist. Instead, I would say "John believes that god really does exist" or "John has declared god really does exist". --Node 23:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now my turn (I am repeating this question for the 6th time): What was the reason that parliament rejected the idea of renaming the language; it would be only logical if you say everyone says they are identical. This little (but evidently not so little) puzzle (rather than node ue, contrary to propaganda here) is the main reason why I disagree to write in the article ro:=mo: as an absolute truth, without any minimal hint on the opposite opinion. mikka (t) 10:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, while most people say they are identical, many in Moldova believe they should be called different things for the purpose of promoting a separate identity. The main proponent of this is the Communist Party, which has had a majority in parliament for some time now, and which has argued along the lines of "We can call our language what we like. We're not Romanian". So, from the purely linguistic side, the two are equal, it's just politics that has intervened, and that should (and is) already mentioned. My point with identicality was simply changing to ""Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)" the part about the language being "near-identical". As to MS Word, that shows that MS Word recognises the language as "Romanian". Word has options for every country even if the forms don't differ (i.e. it has French (France), French (Belgium), French (Cote d'Ivoire), French (Senegal), etc) so it's only natural it has Romanian (Romania) and Romanian (Moldova). The point is that it doesn't have "Moldovan". Ronline 10:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost no problem. One thing only: there is no linguistic term "official form". There are official language and standard language, which address different aspects. Also I would like to see mentioned that this happened in an "official way", so to say: russian-derived technical terminology was consciously and officially replaced by Romanian one, i.e., the unification was as official as separation. mikka (t) 10:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

MS: Well, not for every country. It has Russian (Moldova) and Russian (Russia), but not Russian (Belarus). Probably because Belarus is on the USA hit list of terrorist states into which the export of technology is forbidden. Also it does not have Chinese(California). mikka (t) 10:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a statement that may be a good compromise:

The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution. However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The official form of the Moldovan is identical to Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling). There is no documented linguistic division at the Prut River that divides the two countries.

More significant differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria. The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english french loanwords). Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them.

Of all Moldovans claiming either "Romanian" or "Moldovan" as their mother tongue, 45.2% declared their native language to be "Moldovan", while 54.8% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

User:Dpotop

Please read my remark a little above about terminology. mikka (t) 11:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the content, I absolutely don't care. What is important is neutral form: absolutist statements are attributed. Now, if here comes an opponent and quotes that deputy minister of irrigation Radu Potcoavă said that Moldovan is not Romanian, this can be added in the same format without revert war. If Radu didn't say it, be happy with you POV prevailing without extremist ways. mikka (t) 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Take two: I also took into account the other position.

The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution. However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. Official Moldovan is identical to Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling). There is no documented linguistic division at the Prut River that divides the two countries.

More significant differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria. The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english or french loanwords). Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them.

To take into account these differences, as well as the particular accent_(linguistics) of the country, a minority of linguists promote Moldovan as a standalone language, different from Romanian (among them, the same Vasile Stati). This scientific dispute is generally considered in the context of the larger political debate covering Moldovan identity (which is arguably the main political debate in post-Soviet Moldova).

Of all Moldovans claiming either "Romanian" or "Moldovan" as their mother tongue, 45.2% declared their native language to be "Moldovan", while 54.8% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

Well? User:Dpotop

My remarks below should not be considered as an obstacle to unprotecting the page.

You disregarded my minor comment about terminology, probably because I was not specific enough. "Official Moldovan" is a nicely sounding but incorrectly constructed term. Please see official language and standard language. You probably would want something like [[standard language|standard]] Moldovan. 18:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you also have the Literary_language, and the Spoken_language, not just "Official" and "Standard". Instead of "Official Moldovan", we could write "The Official Moldovan language". Does this answer your concerns? User:Dpotop

"There is no documented linguistic division at the Prut River that divides the two countries." The phrase is sufficiently general and deliberately politicized to be suspect as to its appropriateness and even correctness. One of major tricks of propaganda is to say truth but not the whole truth. There is no linguistic division between Russian and Belarusian in the area of Smolensk Oblast: there is a such a thing as dialect continuity. Still, the languages are considered distinct but for some raging panslavists. Of course it is very often impossible to draw a line on the ground and say that to the left is dialect A and to the right is dialect B. After all, people migrate. Also, this "linguistic division" for Moldova was artificially created you know when and now it is to be artificially removed. And you are stating it as an absolute all-time truth. Therefore I would suggest you say this not in the intro, but somewhere down the text and explain what exactly it means linguistically, e.g., "Prut River does not make a boundary between recognized language varietes", whatever (I don't even know whether this statement is correct or not). mikka (t) 18:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe this statement can be dropped from the text. User:Dpotop

I would also replace "More significant differences" with "Actual differences". It's factual. User:Dpotop

Bogdan Giusca left Wiki

It looks like Bogdan decided to leave Wiki. This is good news for those who try to prove that Moldovan is not a Romanian language. You can now open that bottle of champagne, Node. --Anittas 11:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's actually bad news, Anittas. Bogdan was a moderate among extremists, willing to consider to a degree the opinions of linguists, while it seems most remaining (who will remain unnamed) would rather just say "They're identical, and any source that disagrees is obviously invalid because I say so". --Node 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Among "extremists"? Please. You're the extremist here, by far. Alexander 007 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There was definititely a lot of bad uncivilized behavior at this article and the talk page, also done (purposefully) with anonymous accounts. And I do suspect most of that is some of the Romanians. It is very hard to make good discussion in those situations. Please let us stop that. Yes, Bogdan was one of the people who actually was reasonable, it is said that he helft. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you spit on your own people while ignoring the one who provoked us. The one who told us that he didn't understand what we said because we wrote in Romanian and he only understands Moldovan. The one who tried to reinvent the linguistic science and discredit Bogdan's arguments. --Anittas 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You must be thinking of somebody else, Anittas. I never said I didn't understand what you wrote because I only know Moldovan. I never tried to reinvent linguistic science, and I don't see what's wrong with trying to discredit somebody's arguments -- that's a normal academic thing. --Node 15:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it, Anittas. The point is not who believes what. Not the most important point at least. The point is maintaining civilized standards of discussion. Unlike you, for me first matters if a given person is a good-natured human being, and only second if that person has to be from my country. Your and Bonaparte's clown and troll performace damages your changes at getting anything done. The sooner you get that, the better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, please only don't start figuring out who started saying what. There is such thing called forgiveness. The sooner we get over mutual accusations the sooner the article moves forward. This talk page is for discussing the article, not people. We already saw who thinks what about whom. Let's not repeat in and give people a chance to start afresh. You will get your chance to recall former misdeeds during RFC or arbitration, if the brawl will not finish. mikka (t) 17:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanizators and Originalists, part II

Some concerns of that discussion remained unsolved. Let's continue here the discussion started earlier. User:Dpotop

Unprotecting

Usually editing solves problems that only get bogged down in discussion. The article has been protected for well over a week, so let's give editing a try. Unprotecting. Play nice and don't call other editors bad names. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest not to dive into massive changes headlong. Some independent visitors say the article is not so bad. Also, please don't revert immediately. Start from exchanging opinions, if you don't like something. There is no rush to establish "truth". Moldova will be here for another two years.

And I am removing moldovan issues from my watchlist, so don't worry about my "irridientist anti-romanian anti-semitic vandalism". Good luck. See you in a month. mikka (t) 17:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I will keep this on my watchlist. I will not edit myself, but I will revert any big changes not discussed in advance on the talk page. Any comments with offensive language will be removed and users will be warned. Repeated offenses will be referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with request for a block. Let's play nice. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My reversion

I just reverted Node ue's and Anittas's edits. Anittas just changed back some of the stuff Node ue changed, so that is not a problem.

My issue is with Node ue's edit. He deleted the paragraph:

Romanian and Moldovan are essentially one language from the linguistic perspective, view supported by almost all linguists. Also, in their official forms are basically identical, excepting for a minor spelling issue

without consulation.

I belive that this was not a minor edit, as stated in the edit summary. I asked before, and I will continue to insist on that, to not make major changes without discussion. Please let us not rush to edit this article, we will just cancel each other, and nothing good will come out. Let us take it step by step. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Step 1: Discuss why that paragraph should be removed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, you know very well that is a very POV phrase. First of all, see language dialect. Second of all, "almost all linguists" is a weasel term. (see WP:WEASEL) Third of all, "minor" is a judgement call. This has all been discussed before.

In response to Anittas, the issue raised by Iulian U and Mikkalai before that your information from Ureche is inaccurate; see earlier on this page. --Node 03:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he just says that Romanian and Moldovan are closely related languages, not that they're identical. He has an entire chapter called "Pentru limba noastră moldovenească" -- "About our Moldovan language", not "About the so-called Moldovan language" or "About our Romanian language". --Node 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read a bit of Wikipedia:Minor edit, and yours does not really qualify as a minor edit. Besides, weasel term is only the words "Almost all linguists" and not the entire paragraph. And you also deleted The spoken language in Moldova is part of the Moldavian dialect of Romanian, also spoken in Eastern Romania, which I forgot to mention. That is to say, too many changes, too controversal changes, and too fast. About the Grigore Ureche part, let's leave that for later, I don't care either way, but fighting on too many fronts is exhausting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly disagree -- most of the changes were spelling and grammar fixes from Mikka's mistakes. Anyhow, please read my entire response, including the part about "dialect" and "minor". Thus the entire paragraph is POV. --Node 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You also removed the part where it said that Moldavians and the rest of the Romanians share the same ethnicity. What was the reason for that? --Anittas 05:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It was my understanding from reading this section of the Chronicles that he doesn't mention this. Maybe I missed something... can you quote the exact passage where Ureche says that? --Node 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This was already disscussed and agreed that we'll keep it. Again you missed something...? Bonaparte talk & contribs 06:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what has and hasn't been discussed or agreed upon, passages of text should never be kept if they somehow violate principles of Wikipedia. --Node 08:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Hello,

I've been trying to add more factual information in the introductory section, following an earlier discussion. In my text, I took into account the remarks of Mikka, but it seems that Node is not happy with it, and quickly reverted it (in 5 minutes, or so, the time I made myself a tea :) ). So, here is the fragment I propose instead of the second paragraph of the introductory section:

The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution. However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The official Moldovan language is identical to Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling). Actual differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria. The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english or french loanwords). Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them. To take into account these differences, as well as the particular accent_(linguistics) of the country, certain linguists promote Moldovan as a standalone language, different from Romanian (among them, the same Vasile Stati). This scientific dispute is generally considered in the context of the larger political debate covering Moldovan identity (which is arguably the main political debate in post-Soviet Moldova).

Of all Moldovans claiming either "Romanian" or "Moldovan" as their mother tongue, 45.2% declared their native language to be "Moldovan", while 54.8% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

Jacky 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with edits made by Dpotop. A consesus was reached by majority of the people. Bonaparte talk & contribs 08:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus? Where? I only see two people here who agree, you and Dpotop. And majority is irrelevant, acc'd to official WP definitions you need more than 80% to agree. --Node 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Their opinion have been posted and will be accordingly taken into consideration :) . Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Bonaparte? Do you really want to achieve a neutral and stable version of this page, or do you just enjoy conflict? We were actually getting somewhere, and then you came back and started your trolling again. It's pointless to say "I disagree with _______ and support ______" when you don't give any specific details as to your reasoning behind your conclusions. And which people are you talking about? I see 2 people here who agree to Dpotop's version, you and him. Who else????????????????? --Node 09:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on Dpotop's addition

The Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, as defined by its constitution.

Yes, I can certainly agree to that.

However, as stated by Vasile Stati (a linguist and hard-line supporter of the Moldovan identity), the literary forms of Moldovan and Romanian are identical. The official form of Moldovan is identical to the official form of Romanian, in its form from before the 1991 reform (minor changes in the form of one letter and in spelling).

I'm sure you would agree with me that Vasile Stati is certifiable. He makes heaps of contradictory statements -- in his dictionary, he very clearly explains how Moldovan has an illustrious literary history and how it's so amazingly different from Romanian, and then in this interview he says they're nearly identical. Now, he can hardly be considered a reliable source.

And the statement "the literary forms of xx and yy are identical" is absolutely untenable, in ANY situation. Even if you said "the literary forms of Leeds English and London English are identical", that would be untenable despite the fact that Leeds and London are part of the same general literary tradition. The reason for this is that any given body of literature is not directly parallel to all others. Try instead to say "(nearly) All constructions in literary Moldovan are perfectly acceptable in Romanian as well."

As a "linguist", Stati should know this.

And you of all people shouldn't be saying "...as stated by Vasile Stati..." -- why not cite someone more credible? Stati has been discredited by many linguists.

Actual differences w.r.t. Romanian occur in the colloquial speech of highly-russified areas of the Republic of Moldova, such as Chişinau and Transnistria.

I wouldn't really agree here. First of all, "w.r.t." is not a proper expression for an encyclopedia article. It should say "between". Also, this implies that everybody in Chisinau talks like this in an informal situation, which certainly isn't the case.

And you have once again opened the Pandora's box that is Transnistria. Please, try to avoid any statements which include any statement about the status of Transnistria. So you could say "the colloquial speech of urbanised areas including Chisinau and Transnistria", without mentioning Rep. Moldova explicitly and thus leaving the status of Transnistria open. This is an article about Moldovan language, NOT about Transnistria.

The spoken language of these areas features Russian loanwords and expressions, not present in Romania-born speakers (which tend to use english or french loanwords).

It's a bit strange for me that you say "Russian loanwords and expressions". As I noted previously, one could make a good argument for a Ukrainian genesis for most features which seems reasonable, or even Belarusan or perhaps Bulgarian. Also, not all unique features are nessecarily of a Slavic origin.

And "Romania-born speakers" is a judgement call, implying the unity of Moldovan and Romanian. Instead, a good passage should say "not correct in Romanian usage".

Speakers who use such loanwords are aware of doing so and can easily express themselves without using them.

Do you have references for this? And again you refer to them as "loanwords", as if they naturally separate themselves from other words, but they don't. Some do, like "drug" (vs "prietenii"), but many (like "sclad") don't. Why not instead say "people who speak in such a fashion"??

To take into account these differences, as well as the particular accent of the country, a certain linguists promote Moldovan as a standalone language, different from Romanian

Actually, the major debate about Moldovan isn't the colloquial language or the accent. It's about the official language, which is obviously a ludicrous debate in the first place, but nevertheless continues. Stati makes 0 mention of the colloquial language, and words which are unique to it are not included in his dictionary.

And no real linguist will debate seriously about what is a language and what is not, as it's a purely subjective judgement in the first place. Only quacks like Stati try to make serious scholarly arguments about such status, others will state it only as a personal perception. Please see dialect...

(among them, the same Vasile Stati). This scientific dispute is generally considered in the context of the larger political debate covering Moldovan identity (which is arguably the main political debate in post-Soviet Moldova).

"Which is arguably the main political debate..." here we see a peacock phrase.

Node 08:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind if I take this page off watch? You guys are a bore. Chill out. Alexander 007 08:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead... if you don't care anymore, that's fine. --Node 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Node. His edits doesn't reflect the consensus reached here. Again he tries to push a POV. I agree and support the edits of User:Dpotop! Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course you don't agree with me. You never agree with me. And we're talking about dpotop's edits, not mine. And which consensus did we reach here? And who participated in that consensus? Was it a bunch of imaginary friends? --Node 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I will ignore this attack. Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Additions

I would like to replace the current statement in the intro with the following: "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian, except for a minor spelling difference (see Alphabet and spelling section)". Consensus? (By the way - Node, you've being overly picky of weasel and peacock terms. Come on - most subjects use these terms, and as long as what is said is true, it's OK. Sourcing absolutely every statement in the article can never happen, but as long as what its implying is true, it's OK.) Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 10:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, there are sources which claim there are more differences in the official language, and the status of neologisms still isn't clear to me. Even if the technological neologisms from Russian are no longer used, they should be discussed in the article with examples. The only technical word I know that doesn't happen in Romanian too is "mobilnicu". Anyhow, it doesn't matter which subjects do and don't have those words -- weasel and peacock terms are not supposed to be used, and in this particular case I think they tilt the article in favour of an identicalist viewpoint. --Node 16:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Intr-adevar, Ronline, azi e 1 Decembrie, si urez tuturor Romanilor, de oriunde ar fi, numai bine.Dpotop 10:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with version of Dpotop and Ronline. We will do that so. "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian,...

La Mulţi Ani românilor de pretutindeni Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If Node agrees with the proposal of Ronline, I agree, too. Also, instead of saying "minor difference", we can be more factual and say "identical with Romanian in its form from before the 1991 spelling reform". Like Ronline says, we can explain the differences later. Dpotop 13:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear all

I will take some time off editing this article, as it seems to me that it's definitely a huge loss of time, very different from other wikipedia articles I contributed to. I do not know what the motivation of Node is, but it is obviously strong, and I do not have the moral authority to tell him that he is an extremist. BTW, I do believe he is one.

Although I've had some disagreements with you, I must say that overall, I feel like you have made a positive impact on this article, and that you have made genuine attempts to reach consensus. As regards me being an extremist, I would say that most of my views are supported by linguists, and that perhaps my views are not fully understood -- I certainly wouldn't say that Moldovan and Romanian official forms are separate languages, but then I wouldn't say they're the same language either, because I don't believe there's a real dividing line there (see dialect). You said earlier that my opinion is more Moldovenist than Stati's, I really have to disagree, he's an extreme Moldovenist and makes lots of comments about the illustrious literary history of the Moldovan language and **** like that, and he is the protegé of a famous Soviet linguist who made patently insane assertations about differences which simply never existed.

I prefer letting our friends from the Republic of Moldavia deal with him. I hope they can deal with Node, otherwise Wikipedia is just a playground, where any oppinion can be pushed by determined editors. There is at least one Moldavian editor on this page, with admin powers, which should be ok, to start. I have also seen nice posts of other Moldavian editors, some at the mo wikipedia.

Ahh Dpotop, "Moldavia" has negative implications because it stinks of the Soviet era. The name for the country in English is (republic of) Moldova. Anyhow, I still think it's very interesting how opinion here is polarised -- editors from Moldavia (that is, the Romanian part) seem to hold much more extreme anti-Moldovenistic views than other Romanians, or even most Moldovans (Basarabenii).

I will only observe this page, and only support the positions of Moldavian editors, or suggest them changes (upto now, their oppinions seemed quite in line with what I proposed). Upon request from their part, I can contribute.

Given that all Romania-born editors were at some point in conflict with Node, I suggest they do the same.

In particular, I suggest Bonaparte and Anittas to refrain from personal attacks. Node is counting on them, and using them actively to legitimize his position in the eyes of non-romanian wikipedia editors. In particular, do not let yourselves provoked, even if Node is seeking it. Just remember that by personal attacks you simply help him. Dpotop 10:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dpotop, I have actually considered abandoning this conflict because of the personal attacks. I don't enjoy them, and I don't feel that they help me. I think it would be reasonable for me to seek at this point for Bonaparte to be banned permanently for harassment (after some of the posts he made), but I don't really care so much to chase after that. Bonaparte has littered the user talkpages of many Romanians telling them to come edit here. I have not done the same with non-Romanians. I did not ask anybody to block Anittas or Bonaparte. I'm still really quite offended by the attacks, and after some of the things Bonaparte did/said, I really am actually intimidated. --Node 16:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Node ue, if this continues, please ask at WP:AN/I for a block. In fact, if this continues, I will ask there too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

<comment removed>

<comment removed>

Node, this time I don't want to be rood, but I think you are a little bit hypocrite. It's just a thought of mine, I don't want to offend you necesarly, in that that you don't want us to state that Romanian and Moldovan are indentical, but still, you copy articles from ro.wiki into mo.wiki, and just translitarate them into cyrillic. I reapeat, you should not take this necesarly as an insult. --Danutz

Vasile's edits

Vasile, I think you are a well-meaning person, but your edits have been too huge, and without consultation. Thus, I reverted them. Please feel free to to make minor corrections on the page, but anything major has to be discussed here first.

I did the same thing to Node ue above. So it is not as if I am biased against one side or another. But unilateral edits will do no good. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a list of problems with that article? I am not able to find the problems in that amount of discuss. --Vasile 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vasile. No your edits were not controversal. But I think it is not a good idea to start editing away that article without discussion. It will lead to people thinking that anything goes. There is some discussion on the talk page about what to change. I guess that needs to be dealt first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Discuss what? --Vasile 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What to be included in the article. You can read above about the issues. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To Node

Hello Node,

It appears that nobody explained why many people here have a fundamental problem with your position on this page. I will try to do it now. Given recent posts, I presume most other editors share my oppinion.

First of all, it appears to me that your position is based on the work of Dyer. I do not have his books, nor access to his articles. If you have them as files, I would like to have them.

Nevertheless, and regardless of what any linguist will tell me, I know, from direct experience, that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language. And you, as an american which is accustomed to freedom, should understand that a man should first believe what his eyes and ears tell him. Experts and scientists come second. There were Soviet scientists and experts that stated that Moldovan!=Romanian. Now there's an american (I presume this based on your refusal to accept the word "identical").

My oppinion is comforted by the fact that all Moldovans I came to know, on this forum or in real life, were either ethnic Russians (and said so), or spoke Romanian (and not the Moldovan Language). You are the first and only person I see promoting the difference between the two languages. I suggest you look on the page of Oleg, for instance. He is talking Romanian, not Moldovan. And it's the same on many other pages (everybody I know on wikipedia, who comes from Moldova). BTW - are there any "moldovan" speakers on wikipedia?

Then, who is right? The expert, or the real people who perceive each other as Romanian speakers? I will say that the real people. If I consider Oleg as Romanian speaker, and he himself considers as such, I say he is speaking Romanian, regardless of what Dyer may or may not say, regardless of what Soviets said.

And then, you come, and sustain the contrary. Of course, less patient people like Bonaparte and Anittas will let their anger free (to the point of being trolls). But there is a lot of anger after 50 years of Communism. And you are perceived here as sustaining one of its worst aspects (so in the eyes of many you are the bigger troll, even though you only swear rarely).

So, Node, I suggest you take some time to think, ask people arround, and exhibit some common sense, which I consider to be one of the main contributions of the Brits to the culture of the world. This is more important than any expert, in my view.

Finally, I have to say that your involvement in this subject puzzles me. In approaching a different culture I tend to be inquiring, not offensive. I tend to ask people what they believe. And I have to say that you are quite the opposite (don't take it bad, but I do not consider you a moldovan, despite your moldovan heritage). This, too, may be perceived as a sort of aggression by many. Something like: "This guy doesn't have a clue about what really happens there, and he is fighting everybody else".

Conclusion (suggestions): Show some common sense. Let Moldovans choose what they are and what they speak. Not Bonaparte or Anittas. Just Moldovans from Moldova (even though even Moldovans from Moldova, and other Romanians should have a say). Trust real people more than you trust your books.

Dpotop 18:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dpotop, your experience is wholly irrelevant here. On Wikipedia, you must cite sources. Now, I am not collateral damage of some academic paper. I had my opinion on this topic for a long time now. Dyer's research was simply « supporting evidence ». --Node 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Posts by Anittas and Bonaparte (guys, you are not helping)

You have no right to delete my posts, Olegvky. That poem breaks no rules and Wikipedia was not founded by Stalin.

Catelus cu parul cret, Fura rata din cotet, Si se jura ca nu fura, Dar l-am prins cu rata-n gura! :D

--Anittas 18:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the effort to have more examples of the Romanian language. This is such an example. The one posted by Anittas fits perfectly well this approach. Maybe it will be translated in "moldovan" by the expert, I won't say his name but we all know him. Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, Bonaparte, you do not seem to get it. The problem is not that Node does not know that Romanian and Moldovan are the same. He does know that every Romanian text is a Moldovan one, and vice-versa. You are not helping by giving examples. It seems to me that he believes that some sort of conspiracy exists to hide the "real" spoken Moldovan language of which "koncenii" and "sclad" are words. In fact, he is not protecting the language regulated by the Moldovan Academy of Sciences (see how he discards the arguments of Stati). This is why this discussion will never end. Because there is no rational argument he will accept. He doesn't even accept the arguments of the Moldovenist side. :) He appears to be the collateral damage of some not-too-serious linguistics research paper (or he simply misinterpreted some statement in such a paper). And, of course, there is the problem of the official Moldovan language. Of course it's politics, everybody in Moldova and Romania knows it, but he cannot understand it (he is not Moldovan, nor Romanian). Someone from the Republic of Moldova, please explain him. User:Dpotop

And again, you get into his game, and agress people around. User:Dpotop

I suggest you do not agress Node (at least for some time :) ) so that he can ask oppinions from his Moldavian friends. If he does not do that, we're deadlocked. Of course he bugs you, because you live there and know first-hand that you are right. But he, too, believes he is right, because he read some stuff and it takes some time to assimilate it correctly and put it in perspective. User:Dpotop

As the stray native English speaker, I suggest that there is no English verb "to aggress". -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Node edits reverted

Same justification as for you (again!) and User:Vasile, earlier today. User:Dpotop

I thought the recent edits of Node ue were just cleanup, without removals, so they would qualify as minor edits. By the way, one more reason I reverted Vasile is because he was not aware I think of the discussions in here, which I think was not a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dinamo Bucharest 0wnz Moskva (ro: Moscova)

D. Bucharest wins with 1-0 and pretty much eliminates the chances of the Russkies to qualify. Bravo! We already have two teams qualified for the next round of Uefa. Dinamo can be the third. Bravo!

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UEFACup/FixturesResults/Round=2209/match=81973/Report=RP.html

--Anittas 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :Thankx for the good news. We are the winner! I hope it won't be the last time when we teach them a <football> lesson. Bonaparte talk & contribs 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas and Bonaparte, this is silly. Please move that to your talk page. It makes me think you care about truth and fairness less than about hating the Russians. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for celebrating the national day of your people with us. You have a strange way of expressing your sentiments, tho. --Anittas 05:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

On your talk page buddy, express your sentiments on your talk page. Or, if you wish, go home, open a shampagne, and have an awesome party (I wish I could join, I like beer). But not here, Anittas, this page is called Talk:Moldovan language. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

But I am "Moldovean" and I speak on "Moldoveneste". I belong here. --Anittas 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New changes

I've inserted "A number of Moldovan government officials, as well as several government departments, consider Moldovan and Romanian to be the same." Node - this is not a weasel term because it is summary of what is said in the Official view section of the article, which is backed up by citations. "A number" doesn't mean many or even most. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 07:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job Ronline! I agree with your edit since there is here a majority of users that supports such edit. Bonaparte talk & contribs 07:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I support it as well. We are reporting what these officials have said. Alexander 007 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also inserted the stuff on more officials who have said the languages are the same and the government departments issue. This stuff is cited and hence should not be reverted (remember Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages). If Node wants to introduce the names of officials that say the language is different, he can do so. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a weasel phrase. If you give the names later in the article, it's redundant to state so high up basically the same thing, except using a weasel phrase. "a number" doesn't explicitly mean "many", but it has that connotation. When you say "there are a number of countries with a Daco-Romanian speaking majority", it's technically correct -- there are indeed "a number", that number being 2. But the _connotation_ of the word leaves one walking away with the feeling that there must be 10 or 20 such countries. --Node 11:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: Why was Danutz's comment removed about Node copying articles from ro.wiki to mo.wiki? I'm not advocating people insulting Node, but this censorship on talk pages is quite unacceptable and totally against the spirit of wiki, particularly since Danutz's comment wasn't at all a personal attack (he made this clear about three times during his short message). Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 08:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No idea why. I didn't read it, but I'm guessing somehow it attacked my credibility, even if it didn't intend to. And FWIW, I'll acknowledge here that >99% of the articles on mo.wiki are trasliterated from ro.wp articles (although some have had factual corrections, or other such things). AFAIK, there are only 3 articles that are original -- the one on cabbage, the one on maize, and one on a Moldovan city (don't remember which one), all of which I wrote. I intended to add more, but it's definitely much easier to draw from a reservoir of preëxisting articles than to write new ones. --Node 11:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed that text because it was not helpful on this page (calling people hypocrites is not useful.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Support changes. User:Dpotop

Again unilateral changes made by Node

• Mark Williamson (node_ue) testify again that he likes to make inflamatory edits. He is alone in his position, he did not reached consensus, he reverted text without explanation.(Proof: [[8]])
• We now may consider further actions to stop him, there are sufficient testimonies so far and he did not obey the rules of Wikipedia.
• However I don't agree with his edits and other as well, as seen above User:Bonaparte, User:Dpotop, User:Ronline, User:Alexander_007, User:Anittas, User:Danutz, User:Oleg_Alexandrov. Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, let people themselves say what they agree with, the list above does not give justice to the issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a response to that WHO ELSE so I wanted one more time to emphasize who are the supporters. Else someone didn't know ...([[9]]) Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to Node

I have attributed one of your contributions to Chris Sundita (his contrib was minor). I apologize. Nevertheless, good point. Romanian was written in cyrillic for a long time.Dpotop 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Big request

People, I would like to remind you to not make very big changes to this article. And do not make a lot of changes at once either. Please work step by step. Add something, wait a couple of days, see the reaction. Use the talk page a lot. And use long and clear edit summaries when you make changes.

We have a fragile peace in here, anybody making really big changes risks causing a revert war. There is nowhere to rush. Please take it easy. Do not add really controversal things before stating those on the talk page. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

They are doing just fine. All what they added was first discussed here and approved to be added. Plus they have my full support and I agree with them. These changes are very good and NPOV. Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That you agree with them is no big consolation. :) Again, slow progress is the best progress. Thank you for your undertanding. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Map of Moldova integrated with the other romanian regions, by 1599

I would like to present you a map of the Moldava integrated by Michael the Brave around the year 1599. Of course all people from the state spoke romanian.

Romania in 1600

Romania in 1600

I suggest that this map to be added at the section Hystory 1500-1660. Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposed. That belongs to History of Romania, not here. I understand your point, but the issue is already dealt with in the text, and this map will just inflate the passions. What is needed Bonaparte, is a map of variation of dialects across Republic of Moldova (yes, we do have variation). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that it is almost certainly a copyright vioulation, it presumably belongs nowhere in Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif

Image:Romania 1600 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)