Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

What it comes down to

OK, so it seems that most of the edit-warring has died down and the only dispute is now between my version of the lead paragraph and Node's. The two versions are as follows:

Ronline

Node

Moldovan (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova. It is also an official language of the disputed territory of Transnistria. The Moldovan language, in its official form, is considered by several experts to be identical to the Romanian language, an Eastern Romance language, except for an orthographic difference (see the Alphabet and spelling section), and that its status as a separate language is a political rather than linguistic one[2]. Some Moldovan linguists, however, dispute this claim[3]. A number of Moldovan government officials, as well as several government departments, consider Moldovan and Romanian to be the same language. There are, however, more differences in the spoken languages of Moldova and Romania, most significantly due to the influence of the Russian language in Moldova. "Moldovan" (graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.

Moldovan (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") is an Eastern Romance language, the official language of Moldova and one of the official languages of Transnistria. Moldovan, in its official form, is considered by certain experts to be nearly identical to the Romanian language[2], although others dispute this[3]. The classification of Moldovan as a language independent of Romanian by Soviet linguists, and the ongoing debate over whether this distinction in language standards should be discarded, are both closely tied to regional politics. "Moldovan" (limba moldovenească or graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.

Finally, this issue has caused a great degree of controversy and has created generally negative side effects for the community. Aside from the leaving of Bogdan, it's made a lot of people quite bitter about Wikipedia. And it's made me waste a lot of time I could've used for the Bucharest article. But, disputes must be solved. Ronline ✉ 00:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would go with your version, which is very close to my initial version, except it clarifies the differences in the spelling. Another issue is the number of speakers. The 1.2 number has no sources. 01:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Constantzeanu

Here is how I would reconcile your and Mark's texts:

The Moldovan language (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") belongs to the Eastern branch of the Romance language family. It is the official language of the Republic of Moldova as well as the disputed territory of Transnistria.

A significant number of experts consider standard Moldovan to be virtually identical with Romanian, save for some minor orthographic differences. The matter of whether or not Moldovan is a separate language is a hotly-contested political issue. (I think this part should be kept brief, as it will lead into the section below explaining the controversy).

"Moldovan" (limba moldovenească or graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.

That's a rough start. But hopefully both of you can come to an agreement. --

Chris S. 01:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I'd agree to most of that. The parts I would dispute are "disputed territory", "significant number", and "save for some minor orthographic differences". Yes, the status of Transnistria is disputed, but I'm not sure why we need to specify that. It is one of the three official languages of Transnistria. If it were official in Texas, would it be nessecary to say "The American state of Texas", or could we just say "Texas"? "Disputed territory" will anger some Moldovans and Romanians who feel it challenges Moldovan territorial integrity (to those viewpoints, it's not disputed because it belongs to Moldova), and would perhaps anger some Russians or Ukrainians who feel it is unfaithful to the fact that Transnistria does have control of its own affairs. Transnistria is Transnistria, whether or not it is independent, or disputed, or whatever.

"Significant number" is POV. How many experts constitute a "significant number"? Surely, different people have different opinions on that.

"save for some minor orthographic differences" is not a phrase included in the references I added. All of them say "nearly", "virtually", etc., but nobody says anything about it just being due to "minor orthographic differences". Dyer mentions other differences, Iepuri mentions other differences, everybody who's ever written much on the subject mentions other differences. --Node 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were to refer to Texas in an article, I would probably have to qualify it with "US State" or something similar. I agree with the word "disputed territory" since it sounds rather vague, though. But still, I think a qualification is necessary. Until I read this article, I never knew there was a place called Transnistria. And in my mind I was wondering if it was a city, region, or what? So in some sense, a qualifier is necessary. I don't think the average American knows what and where Transnistria is, either. In the Kapampangan language article, I had mentioned that it was spoken in the provinces of Pampanga and Tarlac. --Chris S. 02:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris I am sorry but your version is simply the Node ue version with very little changes.

I think its factually wrong to say it is a language since that is disputed. It is also wrong to say that it belongs to the Eastern branch of the Romance Languages. This is wrong off the start. If you want to classify it, you could say:

So, do you deny that Moldovan is a set of lexemes and the rules by which they are used?? What is disputed is whether or not it is a separate language. It is most certainly a language. I don't see how you, or anyone else for that matter, can dispute that. But it is, it really is, a language. Separate, maybe. Language, yes.

The Moldovan language (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") belongs to the Daco-Romanian dialect. It is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova as well as the sepparatist self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria. Constantzeanu 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Official name of the state language"? Really, that's pussyfootting around the truth. Moldovan is the official language of Transnistria and Moldova, as specified by the respective constitutions. --Node 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, thanks very much for your input. I think your version is actually very fair in trying to combine views. I particularly like the second paragraph, and the phrase "virtually identical" which is a good compromise between "near-identical" and "identical except for ...". While it's a bit short, I think, as you said, it's better to not repeat stuff in the lead section and that the longer it is, the more prone it is to POV-clouding. The first paragraph is also a good compromise, though I still think Constantzeanu's initial first paragraph version (which was adopted by me aftewards) is more neutral. Constantzeanu's current first paragraph is a bit too POV, because it talks about a "Daco-Romanian dialect". So, I propose the following lead section, roughly, with my additions/changed in bold:

Moldovan (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova. It is also an official language of the disputed territory of Transnistria.

A significant number of experts consider standard Moldovan to be virtually identical with Romanian, save for some minor orthographic differences. There are, however, more differences in the spoken languages of Moldova and Romania, most significantly due to the influence of the Russian language in Moldova. (I'm not too keen on adding this previous sentence, but if you guys think it adds more balance to the lead section, then it's OK) The matter of whether or not Moldovan is a separate language is a hotly-contested political issue in the Republic of Moldova.

"Moldovan" (limba moldovenească This is never called limba moldovenească, as Constantzeanu rightly pointed out or graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 04:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've really to disagree with some parts of that. Again, Moldovan is a language. Wallachian is a language. Bucharestian is a language. Because they all meet the definition of a language. What is disputed is, is Moldovan a separate language?? Not, whether it is a language at all. A language is simply a set of lexemes and the rules used to make them into meaningful clauses. And Moldovan certainly meets that definition.

Also, the "save for some minor orthographic differences" is totally unacceptable because none of the sources for the "virtually identical" part mention anything of the sort. The differences considered are in technical words and phrases, and in other usage trends.

Now, the speech of the historical region of Moldavia isn't called "limba moldoveneasca" today, but didn't Ureche refer to it that way? Or was it "limba moldoveneshte"? Or something like that, because there are definitely some old sources which refer to it as "limba". --Node 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ronline's last version here is the best one as well as the most ballanced one. However We should not say "It is also a language in the disputed territory of Transnistria", since Transnistrian authorities consider only Cyrillic Moldovan as true Moldovan, dismissing the Moldovan writen in the Latin script as simply Romanian.

• I think that sentence should say:

In its Cyrillic script, it is also one of the three official languages of the sepparatist self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria.

• The part with There are, however, more differences in the spoken languages of Moldova and Romania, most significantly due to the influence of the Russian language in Moldova. is not really correct since yes in some areas of Chisinau you might hear a very Russian-influenced slang, yet if you go 20 km away from the city, you will hear villagers speak the same kind of Romanian with a Moldovan accent that we might hear in Vaslui, Romania.

Also, when you go to Ungheni, you have the feeling that you are somewhere in Muntenia. People there speak with a very non-Moldovan sort of accent but rather much like southern Romanians do.

And if that is not strange enough, I heard from Moldovans that Transnistrian speak in such a strange way and with archaisms that the Moldovans call them "Shantisti" because they use an archaic Romanian word şantiwhich is no longer used in Moldova proper, nor in Romania.

All of this goes to say that we cannot generalize and say that spoken Moldovan is different from Romanian since as I have shown above, Moldovan may sound in certain places more Romanian then Romanian in some parts of Romania and in some cases Moldovan west of the river Nistru may sound more like Romanian then the Moldovan east of the river Nistru.

Other then that I think we are moving in the right direction.Constantzeanu 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer Node's objections:

Transnistria - disputed territory is totally NPOV. It doesn't take any sides regarding the dispute. A POV version would be either "the breakaway region of Transnistria", on one hand, or the "republic of Transnistria" or just "Transnistria", on the other hand. Texas is widely known to be a state of the US, but yes, it would be better to say "in the US state of Texas". Transnistria is not on par with Moldova, if Russians feel offended that Transnistria is a disputed territory, well tough luck, because it is. They can argue as much as they want that it's independent, that it's self-governing, but it still remains a disputed territory.

I'm not sure how just "Transnistria" is NPOV. Please explain to me how "Transnistria" is more POV than "the disputed territory of Transnistria".

Whether Moldovan is a language - by stating in the lead that "Moldovan is a language" we're implying it's a separate language. You've mentioned idiolects and technical definitions of languages, but for most people out there, saying something is a language implies it's a separate language. For example, we wouldn't say "Arizonian is a language...", we would say "Arizonian is a variety/dialect/accent spoken in Arizona, considered to be part of the English language." Constantzeanu's version is very correct, it is NPOV. As to pussyfooting, I'm afraid this article must pussyfoot if it needs to maintain a balance and not break out into edit-warring again. Additionally, the term "state language" is a useful one to mention because that's how most Moldovan press agencies now refer to it.

But you're not undersanding this. It doesn't matter what most people think -- a language is a set of lexemes and the rules that govern how they are put together. Moldovan meets that definition. If you want to say the same at Arizonian language feel free. And it's ridiculous to say that Moldovan is the name of the official language of Moldova -- Moldovan is the official language of Moldova, that's what the constitution says!

The speech of Moldavia - it's called "grai" today. This isn't a political point at all, and hence I'm not too concerned about it. But today it's never called "limba", only "grai".

I'm talking about in all history. If you see in a book "limba", it doesn't mean people say it today, but it's still very relevant.

"significant number", and "save for some minor orthographic differences" - you know that a significant number of experts do consider it the same, and you also know that orthographic differences are minor. Chris' version is fair and represents the reality. Ask any Moldovan if its fair or not. Wikipedia is not an opinion repository and neither is it an archive of expert quotes, so while sources are useful it isn't a case of "it's not mentioned in my sources, it shouldn't be there".

Again you're telling me what I know. What I know or don't know is irrelevant, and what Moldovans think is fair and is not is not relevant either. Any controversial statement on Wikipedia needs sources, I have done that. Now, I know that no experts consider it to be the same because I have been able to find no expert quotes to this effect. I have sourced my statements, you haven't yours.

Finally, Constantzeanu made some really good points about Transnistria and Ungheni. Firstly, it should be mentioned in the lead somewhere that in Moldova proper, Latin is official, and in Transnistria, Cyrillic is official. Perhaps something like "Moldovan (Latin alphabet: limba moldovenească, Cyrillic alphabet: лимба молдовеняскэ, sometimes translated into English as "Moldavian") is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova. It is also an official language of the disputed territory of Transnistria. In Moldova, the Latin alphabet is official, while in Transnistria, the Cyrillic alphabet is official" or even "... It is also an official language of the disputed territory of Transnistria, where it is written officially using the Cyrillic alphabet."

Again, "the official name of the" is totally skirting the truth. The official language of Moldova isn't just called Moldovan, it is Moldovan. Why don't we say that the official language of Italy is called Italian? Because according to the Italian consitution, the official language is Italian!!! --Node 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about

"Moldovan (Latin; cyrillic) is an eastern Romance language and the official language of the Rebublic of Moldolva, including in the territory of Transnistria (where Ukrainian and Russian are also used). It is written using either the latin or the cyrillic alphabet: the former has been official in the Republic of Moldova since 1989, while the latter (official from 1940 to 1989) is still used in Transnistria.

"It is closely related to Romanian, and many linguists consider the two languages to be one and the same. This controversy, which dates from the early 20th century, has been particularly marked since the independance of the Republic of Moldova in 1991.

"Moldovan can also refer to the dialect of Romanian spoken in the historical region of Moldavia."

Physchim62 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the statement "many linguists consider the two languages to be one and the same"?????????? --Node 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To say: is an eastern Romance language and the offcial language of Moldova, including...

is wrong right away. Simply for the reason that it is not politically correct. The fact that it is a language is disputed. By stating it is an eastern Romance language is a POV.

Linguists do not dispute its status as a language. A language is a set of lexemes and the rules which are used to make them into meaningful sentences, Moldovan meets this definition, there are no linguists who dispute that who I know of. Even the WP article language defines it that way!! --Node 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ignore Node ue's remark that Bucharestian and Wallachain are languages. I think that sounds simply stupid. If you say that in a scholarly article I think you are bound to get laughed at.

Oh Yeah! The most STUPID think I've ever heard - that Bucharestian and Wallachain are languages - this guy is really dump to say such things! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It may sound stupid to you, but both meet the universally agreed definition of "language". No linguist would laugh at me if I wrote that in a scholarly article, because it's true. --Node 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Other then that I still think that Ronline's version above is the best one. Chris' version is a little bit too POV as well. Constantzeanu 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No. "Closely related to Romanian" is a deceptive (intentional or not) understatement. It's in fact a ridiculous understatement. The Aromanian language is closely related to Romanian. Moldovan is just Romanian as it is spoken in Moldova. Alexander 007 11:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Moldovan is just Romanian as it is spoken in Moldova" is your POV, and will not be included in the article. --Node 16:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan is identical with Romanian. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"or vice-versa"

In this sentence form the article:

The main debate surrounding the status of Moldovan is its status in relation to Romanian, specifically: is it a dialect of Romanian (or vice-versa), a separate language, or are the two in fact different names for the same thing?

I wonder if the 'or vice-versa' bit is serious or someone just being contrary? Has any linguist actually seriously suggested that Romanian is a dialect of Romanian? If so could we get the details of the suggestion and the logic behind it? If not I think we should remove the () all together. Dalf | Talk 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean, have they suggested that Romanian is a dialect of Moldovan?? Of course no linguist has suggested this. You must've skipped the previous paragraph, where it said it's NOT A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. So none of the above are suggestions of linguists, because linguistics as a science rejects the notion that idiolects can be grouped definitively and meaningfully (rather than arbitrarily) into separate languages. --Node 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My question was more focused on what is the point of the parenthetical or vice-versa from an encyclopedic point of view. Surely the philosophy of what constitutes a dialect belongs in the dialect article. Though if it belongs here it deserves more explanation, in short the way it is inserted it strikes me as a sort of tong in cheek comment meant to make some sort of point that the author who put it there thinks the whole paragraph (indeed the whole discussion is silly). If that is the case then we should Either remove it or address it in a more encyclopedic way. Dalf | Talk 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Small steps

I thought it was agreed that this article should be modified in small steps while allowing others to express their agreement or opposition. Node, you clearly missed that (rather important) bit. My comments to your edits:

• Transnitria is not a country. As such it cannot have an official language.

Whether or not Transnistria is a country is disputed.

• When you say there are "certain experts" who consider that Moldovan and Romanian are nearly identical, it sounds like there are just a handful of people saying that. There is actually no sane linguist who claims the two languages are more than slightly different.

What it sounds like is irrelevant. What matters is the truth.

• Saying "nearly identical" implies that there is a considerable difference. The official forms, however, differ just in a minor spelling difference. You cannot bring that as an argument for saying "nearly". The previos phrasing was a lot better.

How does it imply that? It doesn't say "there is a considerable difference". If it wanted to imply that, it would say they were "similar" or "closely related". And you're wrong, they differ in more than a minor spelling difference, as explained above.

• The sentence about the differences in the spoken languages was good as it was, I don't see why you removed it. Besides, it supported your position...

I explained that.

• Nobody calls the speech in Moldova region of Romania "limba moldovenească". Linguists call it just "grai" (speech, subdivision of a dialect): "graiul moldovean". Usual people say "moldoveneşte" (adverb: in the Moldavian way), or "cu accent moldovenesc" (with Moldavian accent).

What about Ureche's Chronicles where he refers to a Moldovan language??

• The link to Vasile Stati's interview is useful, it should be reinserted. --AdiJapan 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. If a quote from somebody goes against the views they have expressed elsewhere, it should be considered unreliable unless there's corroboration from independent sources. --Node 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

such a stupidity I've never heard in my life: "Bucharestian is a language"

That dude spokes only insanity things. I don't know if have seen this but the latest one is "Bucharestian is a language". Hey dude you're too stressed right now and you don't judge too well. "Bucharestian is a language" this is one of the greatest lie, stupid thing spoken by him. I have never found before such stupidity and now I hear this. Shall I ask the mayor of Bucharest to change the name of the language for this kid? Is this kid serious or what?

Half of his contribution are non-sense (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). The other is revert war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30151230&oldid=30090214). I see no contribution of him to this article. What he makes is called trolling. Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, let me ask you this, what is the definition of a language? It is a system of lexemes and the rules by which they are manipulated. Does "Bucharestian" meet this definition? YES!!! Is it a separate language from Romanian? That isn't a linguistic consideration, and can only be based on somebody's personal opinion. But it does fit the definition of what is a language. --Node 16:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've given sources. You need to discredit my sources. If you want, go ahead and tell me why the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article language is wrong. Otherwise, stop harassing me and start discussing the article. --Node 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

<personal attack from Bonaparte removed>

You really are a dumbass, Node. Seriously. I mean, honestly, between us two - without fear from Soviets wanna-be and Wiki policy - you really are a dumbass. A local, or regional, dialect, doesn't make a new language. Such differences can be found between NY and LA; Alabama and London; Australia and Canada. Such differences can be found in ANY country. Sweden with just 9-million people have such differences. Denmark has them, too. Node, seriously, dude, remove my personal attack on you if wish, and call moderators to block me or file a complaint against me, but dude: you really are a dumbass. I'm being very sincear right now. I'm not trying to incite you. --Anittas 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

credibility

Look at this example posted by MARK WILLIAMSON aka noddde uee:

"Bucharestian is a language"

Dude you're dump to say such things but I need references. Now I need references. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude you're trying to censor me? it won't work, stay calm. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor you. I'm just removing offensive statements against me in line with the official Wikipedia policy Remove Personal Attacks. --Node 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You just did, but you're afraid that if you'll do in the future...-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is your credibility: "Bucharestian is a language"

You have no credibility to say anything more....We've seen your contribution. HA HA :) real dump to say that (eg."Bucharestian is a language"). I need references PLEASE. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As an administrator, I endorse Node's action in removing a personal attack. --Gareth Hughes 16:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's something new. An administrator endorsing that personal attacks are to be removed? Now I've seen it all! --Anittas 16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You may endorse whatever person you like. But this kid speaks only non-sense, makes trolling here, brings no real contribution, he just reverts, makes reverting war, he is alone in his position, nobody agrees with him! If the majority tells him he is wrong why can he accept it? Have you checked please the way he labbel others? I tell you right now: he labbeled others as "konceni" russian word for "sperm"! Is it that you as an admin supports such approach? -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My sentence was short and endorsed one thing only. Stop this slanging match. --Gareth Hughes 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah folks, calm down. Assume good faith sometimes. I think both Bonaparte and Node have feelings on this issue that are too strong. Both Bonaparte and Node are here practically everyday. Alexander 007 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I was present here. But as far as you can see I refrain myself and I didn't even made one edit since Bogdan left. But he made a huge reverting war here. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool down

Bonaparte, Anittas, please calm down. Your personal attacks are not helpful. This is supposed to be a discussion about the Moldovan language, if I remember correctly. What Node meant by the very unfortunate phrase "Bucharestian language" was the language spoken in Bucharest. Not that such a name exists.

I'm afraid that what Node lacks (painfully) in terms of linguistics in general and Romanian language (or Moldovan for that matter) in particular, he compensates by the more mature attitude in the discussion. <personal attack removed Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)>... --AdiJapan 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

AdiJapan, please view the context of "Bucharestian language". The intent was to give examples of the definition of a language in context. --Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Node is not more mature. He is a manipulator. When no-one is watching, he goes on to insult us by calling us sperm and telling people to shut up. When a moderator arrives, he starts to behave like a gentleman. --Anittas 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, koncenii does not mean sperm, in ANY language! Slang for sperm is "koncit". "Tu eshti koncenii" has the relatively innocuous meaning of "You're acting foolish" or "you don't know what you're saying". "Koncenii" doesn't appear in the 3 Russian dictionaries I checked. --Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he laks a lot, not only that. And common sense also. When all the people tell him he's wrong than he's wrong! Even Christopher Sundita left him. mikka also. He is alone. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Sundita didn't leave me. He is a busy university student, and on WP he concentrates more one Philippines-related topics. But he still comes here sometimes, like yesterday. --Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile and Garzo, you've been editing and reverting on top of Node's edits, which have not reached agreement in the talk page and will eventually be reverted, probably to Ronline's last edit. As such, your work is basically useless.

It has been agreed that any major edit has to be first discussed here and then, upon consensus, operated in the article. It has also been agreed that we edit one place at a time, so that all involved be able to express their opinions before the article is changed drastically. I hope people will start following these simple healthy rules. --AdiJapan 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of users enjoying a lot to use this talk page in order to tease and annoy other users. Be bold! --Vasile 17:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply reverted what seemed to be a contentious edit, and added nothing. After, seeing Vasile's other edits I can now see what he was doing. I keep this page on my watchlist because it's a problem article, and I have a number of problem language articles on my watchlist. My only interest is in seeing this article develop constructively. --Gareth Hughes 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok ! My english is very poor ! But I'm an romanian from Republic o f Moldavia ! And I waNT TO to give you one information ! All this discutions about the difference between romanian and so called moldavian language are political and NOT scientifical ! All this discutions are because of Soviet Union ancient politics to demonstarte it is is two differnt language and (of course!!!) two dofferent peoples ! That is ALL the reasons too sustain the meaning of two languages, two peoples !! ANd, of course the old roumanian "proverbe" : Cand un "prost" arunca o piatara in lac o multime de destepti "se chinuie sa o scoata" !!" Iata ce faceti voi acum ! (unsigned message by User:193.230.156.9)

Nice try, Bonaparte. Just because you log out, doesn't mean we can't tell you're the same person. --Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We know this. Many of us here are Romanians, either from Romania or from Moldova. But because there are people out there who think differently, and because Wikipedia's policy is to be neutral, we have to include all valid views. --AdiJapan 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes may watch as long as he wishes this page or another but I remember him when he was constantly reverting my edit on Russian language where it was stated false that THERE IS A REBUBLIC OF TRANSNISTRIA. So I think he is bias. I told him once that Transnistria is not a republic since no other state has recognized it. It is recongnized internationally that is a part of Moldova. USA, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, Italy, and so on all countries recognize that is a part of Moldova. And now he comes to state another point of view.-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, please do not start a line against me. If anyone wants to see what I have I done, they need only look at the page history: it is rather less impressive than you suggest. I have noted that you are engaged in perpetual edit warring and political bantering, and that Romanian editors have found your approach bombastic. You are being disruptive, your contribution list says it all, and I let my own edits speak for me. Please, find another approach to editing. --Gareth Hughes 18:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, nobody is blind here, and even if they were, writing the same thing three times wouldn't help. Besides, the problem of Transnistria should be discussed on the relevant pages. Your comment on the integrity of Garzo is also irrelevant here. He admitted having misunderstood Vasile's first edit and then he didn't intervene. Now do you have any constructive comment? People started avoiding this talk page, and you're at least half the reason. --AdiJapan 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I always said that I want to reveal the truth. That's all. And is fact that Moldovan is identical with Romanian, and is also a fact that Transnistria is a part of Moldova. So, we have to tell this truth also here. From this things should we start talking. However I don't like such perfunctory behaviour from different users. They just come here making trolling or reverting without even read first. But I forgive priest Gareth Hughes for his imprudence and I hope he will forgive me too. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I say, we all cool down but to do that what we need is for Node ue to take a chill pill as well because he is just as emotionally involved in this as Bonaparte. He just hides that better. I think we should all just step a little bit out of our little boxes for a second.

The reason why Bonaparte is so vocal about this is because he is irritated at some of the things that Node ue says like "Buchareshtian language" and that nobody actually bothers to tell Node ue that he should calm down with these extravagant remarks (instead everyone gangs up on Bonaparte). I personally think that Node ue is politically motivated. We should all notice how he talks about Romanian and Moldovan and how they are apart but really if Node ue is that interested in linguistics why doesn't he concentrate on languages he can speak well like English. I find it quite hilarious that Node ue talks about Moldovan, Bucharestan, Wallachian, when he has not even been in Romania or Moldova. Basically Node ue only writes about what he thinks Romanian or Moldovan is. It's a little ridiculous to have someone like that dictate to a dozen other people what this article should say or what the Moldovan wiki content should be.

Really Node ue, I would be very interested to see a Wikipedia in Texan or Hawaian or even Alabamian. After all your Romanian seems to be at a Ro-1 level at best while English is your native language. You would have a much better knowledge to write an Wiki in Texan.

Better yet, if you really like writing Romanian in Cyrillic, you should call your encyclopedia "Shantistan" or Transnistrian-Moldovan since only there is this Cyrillic script used. Yes some villagers in Moldova proper still liked to use it a few years after the introduction of Latin because they were not used to latin anymore but all that has changed now.

Node ue has many flaws in his thinking as well as in the way he adresses the question of Moldovan language and the way he manages his moldovan wikipedia. The only problem is that Romanians act with such emotion that they end up making themselves look bad and Node ue look good because no matter what or no matter how ridiculous he sounds sometimes he never allows himself to sound like he is the aggressor.

In reality though we should all admit that despite the emotional outbreaks by Bonaparte and Anittas, in essence they are right. Node ue was never really open for discussion; he only participates in articles related somehow to Romania, but somehow taking an anti-Romanian attitude and he somehow always fails to sit down and negotiate or see that he is wrong.

So I would very politely ask Node ue to stop hiding behind the whole charade of acting professional, while at the same time making outrageous remarks about the Romanian language and start actually having a constructive attitude here so we can really make the best out of this article.

If you are politically motivated then I honestly believe that you should not be taking part in editing this article since that would only make it POV. Thank you. Constantzeanu 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dictating anything to anybody. And I provide references for all of my statements. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, then discredit my sources instead of going on and on about what you think is wrong with me as a person.

Reread the section where I mentioned Texan, Hawaiian Formal English, and Alabamian. What I said is that they all fit the definition of a language -- they are systems of lexemes and the grammatical rules used to form sentences from them. Just because a language is a language, doesn't mean it's reasonable to write a Wikipedia in it. I wouldn't advocate a new Wikipedia in English-of-Wikipedia-user-Bonaparte even though it fits the definition of a language, nor would I advocate a new Wikipedia in Romanian-of-Ronline though it, too, fits the definition of a language.

What do you mean, my Wikipedia? And Constanteanu, data on villagers in Moldova is from 2002. That's 3 years ago. And Shantistan is the specific dialect spoken in Transnistria, not the regular written language, or at least that's how I understood it. The Wikipedia is written in formal Cyrillic Moldovan, not any sort of slang or spoken koine.

What are these problems? The fact that I source all of my statements, while you guys don't? The fact that I do research, and you guys just base everything off of your personal knowledge? The fact that you guys tell me that I am immature, have flawed thinking, etc, etc, and I don't do the same to you? And again, it's not my Moldovan Wikipedia -- the majority of the edits are not mine.

Since, of course, Ryukyuan languages, Rusyn language, Japonic languages, Stefanie Sun, La Tortura, Singlish, and other articles to which I have contributed prolificlly (2 or 3 were created by me in fact), are all related to Romania... not! The only one you could construe as even possibly being related to Romania is Rusyn language, because Rusyn is spoken in Eastern Europe, but even that is a stretch of the imagination.

And I would like to ask you very politely to explain what on earth you mean by this. I have sourced my remarks. I don't care if you think they're outrageous. It seems amusing to me that you ask me to stop what I'm doing, when I'm totally within the boundaries, giving citations from experts, etc.

....... --Node 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Node ue, I gathered all your answers here in one pile because its really hard for me to follow what you responded if I have to skip from paragraph to paragraph.

To reply to your comments:

1. Can you please state your sources here on the talk page so I can see them as well. I can't make out from the reff. on the bottom which ones are yours and which ones are not.

2. About you not starting a wikipedia in Texan, I think it's a real pitty. I would certainly be interested to see it. I would also have liked to see a Wikipedia in Austrian-German, Australian-English, Canadian-English( eh? ) and one in Vladivostok-Russian too. How come is it that you had to pick on Moldovan and Romanian? Political motivation maybe?!?

3. About the villages in Moldova and the 2002 data I must say I am really skeptical. Alot of reports about the subject are distroted and based on old generalizations. You should listen more to people that have been there recently. All that is really the Moldova of yesterday. Things are changing there, you know.

4. About Shantistan and the Cyrillic alphabet you are using let me explain something to you. When you write Romanian in Cyrillic certain sounds or words do change when you read them aloud.

For example, lets take something simple like the word "Moldovan" or in Romanian : moldovean. In the Latin script it is written with a ean at the end. In Romanian you read words as you write them so you actually say an e like in electricity and then you say the a like in anaconda.

But in Cyrillic you would write that as follows: молдовйян. I am not sure about the i in front of it but what matters for the purpose of this example is that the я sound is supposed to replace the ea in the Latin script. However 'я really translates as ia. So Romanians from Moldova or Moldovans as some would call them read it exactly as such with a i as in idiot. This obviously changes the way the word is pronounced or the way people speak the language. Currently in Moldova this is no longer the case because over there they write Romanian with the Latin script and you would be surprised to hear people pronounce the ea, despite a heavy Moldovan accent.

In Transnistria this is not the case. People there are heavily influenced by the alphabet they use. They also use words that Moldovans(Romanians) from Moldova have purged in order to sound more Romanian. Examples are words such as "heater", "towel", etc. etc. all being borrowed from Russian. Moldovans from Moldova have gotten used to use the Romanian words "prosop" and "radiator".

• For this reason I think that your Moldovan wikipedia written in Cyrilic should in fact be called Shantista or Transnistrian-Moldovan.Constantzeanu 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)