Jump to content

Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

This should be added

I think that what User:Danutz proposed ( caused by the Romanian Academy reform of the Romanian language orthography in 1993) is good and it worths to be put in text. Anyway it must be recognized that in both countries both system works in parallel. I've seen governmental institutions, and many media institutions from Moldova that use the reformed system. I think that User:Garzo didn't pay too much attention when he was reverting the text. Bonaparte talk & contribs 22:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how important that is. I would not rush putting that. The article is already tilting a bit too much towards the Romanian version of things. No need to emphasize in each and every way that Moldavian is the same as Romanian. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It must be also remarked that before 1945 in Romania was used â rule. So, the 1990s orthographic reform was in fact a return to the situation before the World War II. However it is fact that are the same isn't it? So if it is emphasized I see no problem since they are identical. Bonaparte talk & contribs 10:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
That is Romanian issues, belongs on the romanian language page, not here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well...Moldova was part of Romania isnt't it? They used romanian isn't it? So, it belongs here also. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan (linguistics)

How about if we move this page to Moldovan (lingustics)? This is because the "- language" suffix is used for languages that are lingustically recognised as such, while Moldovan is only "politically" a language. What do people think? Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 08:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am against it. Yes, Moldovan language is a political construction. But please don't forget that the constitution of Repulbic of Moldova states that its language is called Moldovan. Therefore, there's got to be an article about this language, at Moldovan language. Wikipedia does not dictate how things should be in the world, rather, it describes things as they are. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with it. Naming Moldovan a "language" is POV, specifically, the POV of the Moldovan government. Is like the case of flemish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_%28linguistics%29). Bonaparte talk & contribs 10:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Flemish is quite different, since the term Flemish has many different meanings in the linguistic sense. Now, if it's POV to label "Moldovan" as a language, it's just as POV to label it as a non-language. --Node 10:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, pov of a person contributing to Wikipedia is to be ignored, pov of an entire country (government + constitution) can't be ignored, it has to be written about. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
But we can do as the belgians do. With FLEMISH. They are a country after all isn't it so? It is not at all POV actually is NPOV. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
No, we can't. The Belgian constitution names 3 official languages, French, Dutch, and German. "Flemish" is not used in official literature at all, and on the census people usually answer that they speak "Dutch" rather than "Flemish". The situation is very different. --Node 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I will support if if we do the same for all the language articles on Wikipedia, because as we all know the case is not limited to just Moldovan and Romanian. But this brings up a dilemma - are we to erase all references to the word language?
From another perspective, Moldovan and Flemish, albeit in different situations, do meet the criterion of a language as outlined in language: "A language is a system of symbols, generally known as lexemes and the rules by which they are manipulated." So I think it is appropriate to have Moldovan language, Flemish language, Mandarin language, etc. Also the debate that has been going on in here for a long time is whether they are separate languages. That's up to the details in the article, in my opinion, but not the actual namespace of the article itself. Just my 2 cents. --Chris S. 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
We do have the same identical language here: Romanian. Why should we keep two? Since I see here only one. Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current title is perfectly OK, even though I do not consider Moldovan a separate language from Romanian. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy

Weasel words are against Wikipedia policy. Dpotop reverted my edits where I removed weasel words.

Bonaparte accused me of making changes without consensus. Consensus is totally irrelevant when the contents of the page violate policy. Now, I'm going to say this:

  1. Do each of you agree, or do you not, that the phrases I removed were weasel words? If you don't, please justify with an explanation. (for definition of weasel words, see WP:AWT) If not weasel words, they were passages which I found inaccurate and for which there was not and still is no source.
  2. If you agree that the phrases removed were in violation of policy, do you have some other reason you think they shouldn't be replaced?

Now, in the past, I've raised such an issue of weasel words and there has never been any definitive conclusion. That needs to happen. Although these are clearly weasel words ("most...", "a number of...", etc. are classic examples of weasel words), Dpotop and especially Bonaparte seem to disagree with me removing them. Now, does anybody have any policy-based objection to their removal? I remind you that if they violate policy, their removal is justified, so you guys need to show why they don't violate policy.

--Node 10:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche

It's true that Ureche only hinted at Moldavians and Wallachians being one people and their language being the same. The one who went further to say that they are the same people, speaking the same language, was Miron Costin. Therefore, Ureche's name should be replaced with Miron Costin's name. Keep in mind that Ureche also hinted at the same theory and he was the first to write it down, so I think his name is worthy to be mention. I also think that Dimitrie Cantemir, who approved of Miron's thoughts, and who strengthened the theory, should also be mentioned. --Anittas 12:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, what Mikkalai, myself, and Iulian are looking for here are quotes. Give us the quotes from Ureche. And what you may interpret as "hinting at", somebody else may interpret differently. After all, if he had an opinion, why didn't he just write it as he thought it was? --Node 12:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I just said that Miron Costin said those things. I mixed them up. This can be fixed very easily. --Anittas 14:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The (n+1) times when Node alias Mark Williamson makes unilateral changes

This is the (n+1) times when this quy Node alias Mark Williamson makes unilateral changes. I repeat one more time and maybe for the last time: YOU DID NOT REACHED CONSENSUS and nobody agrees with you. You are alone in your position and as I said before you are just making an edit war here. In the last 3 days you've made more then 9 edits and no person agreed with you! It seems to me that you don't care and you're not even trying to reach an consensus here. Don't worry we have a solution for this kind of guys. Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Bonaparte, your constant whinging certainly isn't helping anything. You still have the opportunity to express above why you think those phrases aren't weasel. But you never did. So hold your mouth until you do, because weasel words are against the rules, even if everybody at the article likes them a lot. --Node 16:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I will ignore this personal attack. You seem pretty stressed by the way lately. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
How is that a personal attack? You are whinging. "Weasel words" is an official term, see WP:AWT. It's not an insult. --Node 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not the only one to ignore that comment. A certain SySop also ignored it. --Anittas 18:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I know. But I just hope that this guy will withdraw his remarks...Otherwise... Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Otherwise we will start with obscene jokes again? I suggest that this time you ignore this rather unpleasant comment at your address. And Node ue, can you please try to use better wording to express your point of view? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above, whinging was probably a bit out of line, but "Don't worry we have a solution for this kind of guys" reads like an outright threat. Putting on my admin hat for a moment, I strongly suggest that you both desist from this type of language, but Bonaparte's remark is much farther over the line than Nodes. Play nice, guys. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert of edits by Node

Speaking of weasel words, "nearly identical" is weasel, and I prefer Ronline's formulation to yours. The non-weasel version is "Moldovan is identical to Romanian in its version from before the 1993 spelling reform". This is factual, but you won't accept it.

Second. The transliteration of cyrillic was done into Latin script Moldovan language. Of course I didn't use the transliteration of Russian into English. It's of no use here.

Concerning Ureche/Costin, give us a week to find the good citation.Dpotop 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1) That is not factual. The real non-weasel version would be "Moldovan, in its official form, is not identical to Romanian." I've given sources for this. You ignored them. You can't do that on Wikipedia...
2) Do you knw any Cyrillic? I'm pretty sure you don't. Anyhow, I didn't use a "transliteration of Russian", I used a standardised generalised Cyrillic transliteration. "Big Yus" isn't even used in Russian. Do a search of libraries for "moldoveniaske", and they find the books that say "moldoveneasca" in Cyrillic. Why? Because they use a standardised transliteration for transliterating Moldovan Cyrillic to English, not for transliterating Moldovan Cyrillic to Moldovan Latin. --Node 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong Mark.
The only acceptable version which is also non-weasel is: "Moldovan is identical to Romanian". Your sources says also: they are identical. Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It's great for you to say that, but at Wikipedia, you need sources for controversial statements. I gave mine. I can give quotes. The sources I just added all say "Moldovan is nearly identical to Romanian", or "practically" or "virtually" or some other synonym. And some of them give examples of differences. --Node 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To Bonaparte

Dear Bonaparte, it's time we fined the good citation(s) from Ureche/Costin/Cantemir. Can you find it? For Ureche, "Letopisetul tarii moldovei" is online. I cannot find "De neamul moldovenilor, de unde sunt ", can you find it in a local library, and read it?

Maybe the best is Cantemir's "Hronicul vechimii a romano-moldo-vlahilor" where it's written: „...neamul moldovenilor, al munteni­lor, al ardelenilor, care cu toţii cu un nume de obşte români se cheamă... Noi, moldovenii, la fel ne spunem ro­mâni, iar limbii noastre nu dacică, nici moldovenească... ci românească"Dpotop 15:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I will. It will be found for sure. Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars

People you are engaged in a revert war. Node ue, you reverted the article twice, and you Dpotop once. Node ue, you reverted a lot of bug fixes and noncontroversal changes done by a bunch of people in the last day or two. I think it will be more productive for you to focus on specific issues you want to address than revert all. Then your changes may have a greater chance to stick on. So just please take the article the way it is, and fix the weasel terms, without removing a lot of good work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg,
I didn't do much wholesale reversion. In reverting, I was careful to keep most minor uncontroversial edits and bug fixes. --Node
You lie again Node. Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
. . . --Node 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not be so sure, looking at this. Again, you should have rather worked from the exising version and chosen to pick an argument over just a few specific things rather than doing a revert. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, I reverted a reversion there. Dpotop's edit summary was simply "rv to...", and so I assumed it was safe to revert without losing any changes in between. I made a mistake thre. --Node 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is "not just a mistake"! You made it on purpose, and this is disqualifying you. You made a revert war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30023630&oldid=30018998 this). What you made here is called terrorism over this page. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 08:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to accuse Node of bad faith, start an RFC. If you don't plan to start an RfC, keep it to yourself. In any case, keep it off the talk page, unless it is in the form of saying you are starting and RfC and would like all parties involved to comment.
For the record, I think that Node has been accurate on many small details of this topic and wrong on the big picture; and I see no reason to think he has not been acting in good faith. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

I have said this before but my message was ignored.

  • I think that our job is to present facts and let people decide for themselves if Moldovan is really a language or not. The current article is not balanced. This is not at all about what “Romanians would like the article to say” but in its current form the article has major shortcomings. For starters the article fails to be politically correct.

Let’s take the introduction as an example:

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.

  • Automatically the article suggests to the reader that “Moldovan is a language”. To me this seems very unprofessional. The question of Moldovan being a language is still up for the reader to decide. Secondly this article does not make any differentiation between the Moldovan in Latin script in Moldova and the one in the Cyrillic script in Transnistria.


What the article should read is:

  • 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 and in its Cyrillic script, one of the official languages of the sepparatist self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria.


That my fellow Wikipedians is politically correct. I do not mean to insult anyone or to accuse anyone of not properly formulating the introduction, however we should keep in mind that this is an Encyclopedia and facts should be presented as they are. Now I do not know how many people are actual Moldovans here or how many people have traveled to the Republic of Moldova to see the situation there firsthand. Its one thing to stay behind a computer drinking coffee (in the USA, Canada, Germany, Russia, Belarus, Romania, etc.) and write what you might think Moldova is. It’s another thing to have actually familiarized yourself with the situation there. Government as well as media almost exclusively refer to the language as “State Language”, in order not to seem like they take sides (usually people who call it Romanian are unionists and those who call it Moldovan are communists).

  • We should respect this term that is used in the independent Republic of Moldova and we should make more use of it here. Another thing is that the president of Moldova himself, Mr. Vladimir Voronin has stated that “even though Moldovan might not necessarily be different from Romanian, Moldovans may reserve the right to call it Moldovan and Romanians, Romanian”. I do not have a scholarly article on this. I saw this on a TV channel.

Having said that, let’s go over some more details about the introduction:

The Moldovan language, in its official form, is considered by certain experts to be nearly identical to the Romanian language[2], although a minority disputes this (esp. Vasile Stati). The original classification of Moldovan as a language independant of Romanian by the Soviet Union, and the ongoing debate over whether this distinction in language standards should be discarded, are both closely tied to regional politics. The primary differences between Moldovan and Romanian are the alphabets used to represent them and Russian language influences on spoken Moldovan.

This is not only politically incorrect but also factually wrong.

What is the term “nearly identical” supposed to mean? And what is the meaning of “non-official form of Moldovan” as supposed to this “official form” mentioned here? Maybe what it is meant is “literary form”? If we would like this article to be of some value we should be very clear about our wording. Secondly “it is not considered by certain experts” but rather by most experts. Even Stati has said that written Moldovan is identical (notice how he said identical not nearly identical) to Romanian. Another thing, Russian influences are almost next to none in the villages. Influences are rather more prominent in the Chisinau slang.

This part should read:

The Moldovan language in its literary form is considered by most experts to be the same as the Romanian language” A minority of scholars, headed by Vasile Stati argues nevertheless that spoken Moldovan is somewhat different. The original classification of Moldovan as a language independent of Romanian by the Soviet Union, and the ongoing debate over whether this distinction in language standards should be discarded, are both closely tied to regional politics. The primary differences between Moldovan and Romanian are the alphabets used to represent them and Russian language influences on the spoken Chisinau-slang of Moldovan.

Now for the last phrase in the introduction:

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

There is not one single person in the historical region of Moldovan in Romania that would refer to the language as “limba moldoveneasca”. This is exclusively a “grai”( a form of speech-but not a dialect) and it is part of the same “grai” as the Moldovan grai in the Republic of Moldova.

This sentence should read: * “Moldovan" (graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.


  • I would also like to draw the attention to the “estimated 1.2 mil” people that speak “Moldovan”. This is quite wrong since there are no statistics yet released that would show such a number. It is true that Moldovan newspapers have stated that 60% of the native population has mentioned “Romanian as official language” but one should understand that , firstly, the census in the RM was very politicized and secondly, the rural population may refer to the language as Moldovan without necessarily suggesting that it is different the Romanian. I have come across a number of villagers in the RM who said “Moldovan or Romanian, whichever term you may like”.


  • The 1.2 mil people has no basis, does not appear in any newspaper, scholarly article, etc. etc. and for the time being it should be replaced with an estimated percentile such as “estimated 33% of the Moldovan population”.


Lastly the article should talk about the “Moldovan language in Transnistria” ( which is still written in Cyrilic and which is called alike “Shantista/ Şantistă” by Romanians and Moldovans alike.

Constantzeanu 21:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! Bravo Constantzeanu! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I definitely like the first paragraph. Now, I am not sure about the part "The primary differences between Moldovan and Romanian are the alphabets used to represent them and Russian language influences on the spoken Chisinau-slang of Moldovan." From what I know we use the Latin script in Moldova, as in Romania. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I overlooked that. What I ment to say was "spelling" not alphabets. But it seems that this part has already been corrected.Constantzeanu 03:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Node edits

Can someone please look over these edits? edits

I think some are against policy, have not been discussed, and should be reverted. As for the issue of alphabets, I think it's quite clear that all Romanian/Moldavian type used today in Moldova is Latin. From the placards on the street to the writing taught in schools, everyone uses latin. Sure, some will still write Moldavian in cyrilic, but that's really isolated. Why are people still editing the page over this issue???! --Rares 23:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC) PS> I've archived some of the messages - I hope noone minds. The page was taking ages to load.

I agree with you. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 23:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any justifications from policy? Raresh said he thinks they're against policy, you said you agree with him. He wanted to check. But he has no
Those edits edits must be reverted. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the partial reversion done by Ronline. As I mentioned to Node ue earlier, his revert was huge, if his only purpose was to remove weasel words. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Ronline didn't revert any of the unnessecary reversions I did -- for example, the accidental delinkifying of Greek language and German language. He didn't fix that. In fact, all he did was revert my fix to the intro paragraphs. --Node 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think the article is better now. I think Node is being unreasonably harsh on weasel words. Weasel word policy was designed to prevent users from injecting their own opinion into things and making it seem as if everyone agrees with it. The policy is useful in contexts such as "Oradea is believed by some to be the most beautiful city in Romania", when only the author believes it. However, when making a summary, such terms can and should be used. When throughout the article, we give sources that government departments and officials say the languages are equal, it is perfectly fine to say in the intro "Some people state the two languages are equal". Weasel terms are also OK when they are backed up by sources. If we find a source that says "Most linguists consider Moldovan to be Romanian", that's then a legitimate term. Finally, I think Node is very unrealistic in what he says. The best way to test the truth of this article is to read it as someone who knows nothing about the issue. By reading Node's version, people think "Some people consider the language to be nearly identical, but others don't, and hence it is a separate language, just like Low Saxon is separate to German. Oh, and they're written with different alphabets. Hence, for practical purposes, they aren't really the same language and are only a bit mutually intelligibile". Do you realise the untruth of that? We're talking here about two languages that are 100% mutually intelligible in their written forms, that are written with exactly the same alphabet (the î/â thing is a spelling difference, just like US and UK English).
It doesn't matter what people think from reading the article. Our job here isn't to control what people think. That is the job of a censor, and we are not censors. Our issue is facts. I have provided citations, and at the same time have managed to find a weasel-free version. I didn't add the part about different alphabets. That was added by RAresh I think. But not me. Also, no expert considers Low Saxon and German to be "nearly identical". Language vs dialect, perhaps. But certainly not nearly identical. Find me a single source that says anything of the sort!
The Russian influences are there, of course, but the article already talks a lot about spoken language differences. "Near-identical" is different to "practically identical". Near-identical suggests there are differences in a more overt way. You've so far given sources only for tendencies and spoken language differences. The only difference that really sets the languages apart is this spelling shift. I think it's therefore much better to state the differences in the intro - "identical except for a minor spelling differences", etc. You claimed that "minor is a weasel term". Node, you know as well as I do that the â/î difference is very minor. By saying there is a spelling difference (full stop), it suggests a broader spelling shift - that words in Moldovan are actually written differently than in Romanian, that there are different spelling rules, etc. The real difference is, however, of one letter, and has nothing to do with Moldovan culture, politics, or nationality or anything - it was simply a practical difference due to Romanian spelling reform.
Minor is not NPOV. You need to understand -- saying anything is minor is POV. Yes, â/î is minor in comparison to the differences between, say, English and Scots, but it's major in comparison to the differences between *formal* Hawaiian English and *formal* standard American English (in placenames only, Hawai'ian native language diacritics are used, but that is the only difference -- no commonly-used words are spelt differently). Certainly, it's acceptable to say that one letter in official Romanian is almost universally substituted for another letter in official Moldovan. Donald Dyer himself, as well as (AFAIK) Valentina Iepuri, both recognise that they are nearly identical. Dyer's personal opinion is that it doesn't constitute a separate language, but he said it this way when I asked for clarification: Yes, the differences do exist between the official languages (as he specified in his reports), but he thinks they're too small to make a legitimate claim to a separate language.
You also seem to misunderstand the beliefs of the Moldovenists. They - Stati and Voronin, for example - don't actually see the language as different. They recognise that it is the same as Romanian. However, they believe that they have the right, as an independent nation, to call their language whatever they want. They want to distance themselves from Romania and see the language as an unnecessary example of "Romanian expansionism". It is therefore a political distinction they are making rather than a linguistic one. Hence, it is wrong to assert that Stati ever disputes identicality with Romanian. In fact, according to some sources above, he claimed himself that the two languages are equal. I don't think any linguist has so far asserted that the two languages are actually distinct linguistically (Dyer, for example, believes they are the same) Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Voronin certainly does not, but I really don't believe the source about Stati. Did you see his Dictionar Moldovenesc-Romanesc? Did you read the preface? His fiery rhetoric about the independent literary language and how beautiful and glorious it is? And how he has sub-headings about "Romanian trickery" and things like that?? After all that he said in the preface to his dictionary, it's nearly impossible for me to reconcile it with the quote from him earlier on this talkpage. I think that his dictionary is more reliable as a source for his personal opinion -- he put months, if not years, of his life into that. That quote, on the other hand, is something he said once, taking up only a few seconds. And I have already thrice clarified Dyer's position, not including the final e-mail from him I forwarded to you -- his opinion is that _they are distinct linguistically_, but not enough that he would personally view them as truly separate languages. This is on the official version only, he has not given his personal opinion on the spoken language. Besides, his expert opinion, and that's what counts, is that there are differences, no matter how small or large they may be. --Node 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made some more edits, based on some of the changes I proposed above. I would like to know what people think of them. Also I think a paragraph on the Shantistan dialect in Transnistria would not be bad here. Does anyone know any good sourses about that. I only seem to have two.Constantzeanu 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree about adding something of the Shanistan dialect. The Linguistics Institute at the Moldovan Academy of Sciences has published some wonderful dialect atlasses of Daco-Romanian outside Romanian (one volume for Moldova proper, one volume for Transnistria, one volume for Bucovine, and, I believe, one volume for neighbourhoods of Chisinau, though I may be wrong on the last one.) I've not been able to access them; however seeing as most of you lot live in Romania, I would assume that you could easily access such materials. And I mean the true data within them, rather than conclusions that can be drawn from them. Otherwise I might try to buy them, or some other method. Speaking of the Institute of Linguistics at ASM, despite what Ronline said, they carefully sidestep the issue of Romanian vs Moldovan. Yes, their speciality is declared as the "Romanian language", but nowhere do they mention Romanian as the national language. They don't use the term "Moldovan". They use the terms "Romanian" and "National language", as if referring to distinctive entities. If you substituted occurances of "Romanian" with "German", one could just as easily believe this is an American school focussing together on German and English, because it doesn't once in the page equate the two. --Node 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. But probably we can stop here for a while, let us see the reaction of others. I feel things have been moving too fast recently. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg.

  • On another note, it is funny yet a little sad, that just 5 mins after I have made those changes, they have already been reverted. It is usually not only professional but also polite towards other wikipedians, to discuss your disagreements or proposals on the talk page first before actually changing an article. I am not going to revert them back because usually this kind of stuff never gets anywhere but I would very politely and kindly ask Node ue to undo his revert. Also I would like to point out that there is a rule called the 3R rule, which states pretty clearly, if I am not mistaken, that no more then 3 reverts can be done in less then 24 hours. Constantzeanu 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If that's the case, why did you erase all of my changes to the first paragraph? Ronline did raise some good objections to "weasel" policy, but they were appeals as to what the intention of the policy was, rather than the scope in which it may be applied in actuality. Regarding that, I do feel that the weasel words I removed were enforcing Ronline's POV. "Most linguists agree" implies that everybody thinks something, without giving any references, and also fails to note examples from either side. Instead of saying "most linguists agree", you say "some linguists believe this (references), while others believe this (references)". Ahh, and before anyone asks, yes, Stati is supposedly a trained linguist. I don't agree with his opinions, and he uses some deception to increase the size of his dictionary, and some of its contents are a bit ridiculous, but nothing that's downright false -- even the stuff in the preface is debatable.
Now, I guess I should've asked you nicely to undo your revert of me. But would you tell me what your response would've been? I have already discussed my changes here and so far the only real opposition was along the lines of "You're being too strict" and "What will people really think?", both of which seem beside the point (the first because whether or not I am strict really doesn't matter, the second because it's not Wikipedia's job to make people think a certain way but rather to present them with an uncoloured version of the facts and let them decide from that. For example, having seen all the facts, I still take my current POV. In Ronline's version of the article, the reader is unfairly influenced away from such an opinion by such phrases as "most", "identical", "minor"... these are all subjective in this case. And as I noted above, you can say two texts are identical, but you can't say two languages are identical. See ideolect -- it's not even linguistically acceptable to say that English-as-written-by-Mark is the same language as English-as-written-by-Chris-Sundita. Sure, they have one name. Linguistics does define what a language is. But it doesn't define how languages should and shouldn't be separated. So, English-as-written-by-Mark is clearly a language according to linguistics, as is English-as-written-by-Chris-Sundita. Whether or not they are separate languages is a trivial non-linguistic consideration. You will find absolutely 0 serious academic papers whose thesis statement is that two particular languages are part of the same linguistic system or separate. Ronline criticised me for citing sources for tendencies and linguistic _trends_. However, these are all that separate languages. English, as a (massive) idiolect bundle, has a tendency to say "people" instead of "asipoawerkaklsjdf". And yet, if somebody, or even one million people, changed from saying "people" to "asipoawerkaklsjdf", the tendency would still be the same. Bundles of idiolects, as such, are usually only grouped in mutually intelligible groups, or at least in dialect continua (as is the case with Thai, Hindi, and Punjabi). When we assign a name to a "language", we're referring to an idiolect bundle, and that's certainly what Moldovan is -- an idiolect bundle. A combination of the subtly different language patterns of some millions of people. Same with Romanian. But they encompass different idiolects. Based on that judgement alone, they're separate idiolect bundles. But in the purest definition of language, that's not relevant -- a language is just a system of communication. And yet, after all of that, Bonaparte still thinks I have no knowledge of linguistics I'll bet. Well, I'll invite Christopher Sundita to express his agreement or disagreement wth this opinion since he is a linguist, and if you don't trust him I'll invite in other people who received their formal educations about linguistics. Any linguist will agree with the statements regarding idiolects, idiolect bundles, etc, etc, etc.
Anyhow I digress. The last time I posted anything that had anything to do with real linguistic science, nobody understood it and the response was totally frustratingly oblivious to the entire previous statement... but perhaps it helps me to explain things to others, even if they don't seem to understand. But. Anyhow. Moving on. The 3RR only applies to reverts. That is, reverting a page to a specific earlier revision, without introducing any additional changes. Can you find even 3 instances of me doing that within the last 24 hours? Each time, I removed certain things and left certain other things, and most of the time I added new content aswell. --Node 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
OK - in terms of the spelling difference, I've removed minor, and provided people with a link to the section so they can judge for themselves. I've reworked the lead section. What do people think? Ronline ✉ 05:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the introduction after the recent revert by user Node ue is politically incorrect. The article should give an unbiased view and should present facts as they are. Currently this is far from true.

Maybe we should have the page protected by a steward or bureaucrat. I think that the politically correct form would be:

  • 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 and in its Cyrillic script, one of the official languages of the separatist self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria.

The Moldovan language, in its literary form, is identical to Romanian except for a minor spelling difference (see the Alphabet and spelling section). A number of Moldovan government officials, as well as several government departments, consider Moldovan and Romanian to be the same language, while others believe that the two languages should continue to be regarded as separate, if only for political reasons. There are, however, more differences in the spoken language (especially in the city of Chisinau), most significantly due to the heavy influence of the Russian language in Moldova. "Moldovan" (graiul moldovenesc) can also refer to the speech(dialect) of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania.

  • It says the same thing, however the language used is more worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It looks less like it is overtly trying to convince people that “YES, Moldovan is a language”, but rather that it is considered a language by some and a vernacular of Romanian by others.
Also the “1.2 mil Moldovan speakers” is really inaccurate and has no source, aside from a newspaper article that gives an unofficial estimated percentile (however no numbers). What it should read is that the number is unknown but estimated at 33% of the Moldovan population.Constantzeanu 07:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Constantzeanu, what do you think about the current version ([1])? Is it politically correct and neutral? Ronline ✉ 08:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes Ronline. The current version is much better then the one I saw before. There are still questions which I think should be addressed but I am sure that Node ue will erase them immediately if I attempt to correct them myself. Constantzeanu 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

â versus î is minor, as are the differences between U.S. and UK spellings in English. Neither gives the average reader a moment's pause when reading. When the diacritic is missing and it becomes a versus i, that can be a bit more confusing. But would anyone consider the common online practice of omitting diacritics on vowels and the commas (vergule) in ş and ţ a major linguistic difference? I think not. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trolling of Node

Hey! This guy is just making trolling don't you see? He never agrees to make a compromise, he is alone in his position, he is just making trolling. And you know how to deal: Don't feed the troll! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 08:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark admits he is wrong!

Hey! This kid had finally recognized he is wrong and he made mistakes! Can we forgive him? -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 08:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else, this phrase moldovan and romanian are not identical clearly and totally disqualifies you from being a meaningful contributor to Moldovan and Romanian language. Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Since this kid is the only one in his position and he makes a revert war as you see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30023630&oldid=30018998) we have two solutions:

  • We protect the page against revert war and try to solve problems here, but as I sow this
  • We block the trolling guy who is User:Node ue there are enough proofs that all that he is making is trolling, revert wars, and so on...

-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 08:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Miron Costin, (1633-1691)

Cea mai veche marturie ramane numele insusi al romanilor, acelasi la toate trei ramurile nord-dunarene - de altminteri, in ciuda variantelor fonetice (armani, rumeri), acelasi si pentru urmasii sud-dunareni ai romanitatii orientale. Moldoveni, munteni sau transilvaneni, toti si-au zis de la obarsie romani si si-au numit limba pe care o vorbeau limba romaneasca. Miron Costin nu e decat un martor tarziu cand afirma in De neamul moldovenilor: “Asa si neamul acesta de carele scriem, al tarilor acestora, numele vechiu si mai direptu este ruman, adica ramlean, de la Roma. Acest nume de la discalecatul lor de Traian... tot acest nume au tinut si tin pana astazi si inca mai bine muntenii decat moldovenii, ca ei si acum zic si scriu tara sa «rumaneasca», ca si romanii cei din Ardeal”. Iar mai departe, dupa ce discuta numirile lor sau cele date de straini, conclude: “Macara dara ca si la istorii si la graiul si streinilor si in de sine cu vreme, cu veacuri, cu primenele au si dobandescu si alte numere (=nume), iara cele carile ieste vechiu nume sta intemeat si inradacinat: ruman”.

Acelasi lucru si despre limba: “...macara ca ne raspundem acum moldoveni, iara nu intrebam: «stii moldoveneste»?, ce «stii romaneste», adica ramleneste...”.


Miron Costin punea astfel si problema numirii unitate a limbii - nu exista o limba moldoveneasca, sau munteneasca sau ardeleneasca -, dar si aceea a numelor de caracter local, de diferentiere in masa romaneasca, pornind de la valea unei ape, de la un tinut, de la o “tara”, in vechea acceptiune a termenului: moldovean, vrancean, oasean (din Oas), oltean (care poate fi si transilvanean de pe valea Oltului).

Ca numele general al romanilor e mai vechi decat numirile locale, ca acesta este numele originar, se intelege de la sine, si cu atat mai lesne daca tinem seama de sensul lui. In fapt ei nu si-au dat acest nume la aparitia lor in istorie. Au continuat pur si simplu sa se numeasca asa cum se numisera inaintasii lor, protoromanii - daca e sa distingem asemenea etapa - si, mai departe, populatia romanica, pe baze autohtone, din care se trageau. Altminteri, ar fi lipsit de sens sa ne inchipuim ca numele general ar fi venit dupa cele particulare: adus sau impus de cineva, in absenta oricarei cuceriri, a oricarei dominatii a unui grup asupra celorlalte? Nici forma de roman, alaturi de cea frecventa de ruman, nu e o inventie de carturari in cautarea afirmarii origini romane. De altfel, si daca n-ar fi fost asa, lucrurile nu s-ar schimba cu nimic. Cat despre vechimea termenului ruman pentru denumirea categoriei taranilor dependenti, cercetarile mai noi au adus dovezi care pledeaza pentru folosirea lui din veacul al XVI-lea, in orice caz nu cu mult mai devreme. Oricum, este o acceptiune derivata - in conditii, e drept, nu inca suficient explicate - a termenului originar. Situatia inversa nici nu ar fi, de altminteri, de conceput.

Mai vechi decat atestarile numelui pe care si-l dadeau romanii insisi sunt cele ale numelui care li-l dau strainii, acela de valahi, in diferite variante: vlahi, blachi, olachi, volohi etc. S-a lamurit de mult ca termenul acesta a fost imprumutat de slavi de la germani si transmis apoi de acestia bizantinilor si maghiarilor. El devine termenul general - pana atunci cand strainii il cunosc sau se decid sa-l foloseasca pe cel de roman - cu care romanii sunt indicati in izvoarele europene. Ceea ce e remarcabil este ca acest nume constituie oarecum o traducere a celui de roman, el aplicandu-se in formele lui originare romanilor si unor populatii romanizate, iar apoi ajungand sa desemneze, in variantele sale, popoarele romanice. Deci, asa cum romanii au continuat sa se considere, prin numele ce-si dadeau, o parte dintr-un tot - lumea romanica, romanitatea - si slavii care le-au dat numele folosit de straini ii desemnau ca pe o parte a unui lot, a aceleiasi lumi romanice. Totodata, fiecare vecin sau strain mai indepartat care venea in contact cu o ramura sau alta a poporului roman ii da acelasi nume sau unul echivalent, ceea ce implica, desigur, recunoasterea aceleiasi realitati etnice. A putea banui ca toata lumea era constienta de aceasta unitate de neam si ca romanii singuri o ignorau ar fi desigur sa cadem in absurd. Bonaparte talk & contribs 10:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please translate the above? I don't currently have time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche

Source: ([[2]])

"In tara ardealului nu lacuiesc numai unguri, ca si sasi peste sama de multi si romani peste tot locul, de mai multu-i tara latita de romani decitu de unguri… Romanii, citi se afla lacuitori in Tara Ungureasca si la Ardeal si la Maramorosu, de la un loc sintu cu moldovenii si toti de la Rim sa trag…". Grigore Ureche, Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei.
"Asa si neamul nostru, de care scriem, al tarilor acestora, numele vechiu si mai dreptu este ruman, adica rimlean, de la Roma… Iara streinii si tarile imprejur le-au pus acestu nume vlah, de pe vloh, cum s-au mai pomenit, valios, valascos, olah, volosin, tot de la strein sintu puse aceste nume, de pre Italia, carora zic vloh… Cum vedem ca, macara sa ne raspundem acum moldoveni iara nu intrebam : "stii moldoveneste? ", ce "stii romaneste ?"…". Miron Costin, De neamul moldovenilor.

Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mai însemnata decât aceasta este cealalta lucrare a lui Miron Costin, De neamul moldovenilor. Aceasta lucrare este o memografie scrisa la sfârsitul vietii, despre originea poporului românesc. El îsi dadea seama ca cronica lui Ureche era incompleta si ca mai ales constituia o pata asupra Moldovei, interpretarea ciudata asupra originilor tarii data de catre Simion Dascalul. De aceea, el scrie aceasta cronica, dovedind în mod clar originea romasa a românilor, prin colonizarea facuta de catre romani. Aceasta idee, care a fost pe urma îmbratisata de ceilalti istorici, a avut consecinta foarte departate. Este prima oara când aceasta idee latina, care a caracterizat pe urma toata civilizatia noastra, apare la noi, si consecinta ei imediata si naturala a fost ideea unitatii neamului românesc în Ardeal, Moldova si Muntenia.

El are un stil foarte frumos, foarte energic, însufletit de limba latineasca si este interesant de vazut ce spune el despre istorie, în comparatie cu cele spuse de Gr. Ureche. In prefata scrierii De neamul moldovenilor spune urmatoarele:

"Inceputul tarilor acestora si a neamului moldovenesc si muntenesc, si câti sânt în tarile unguresti cu acest nume români pâna astazi, de unde sunt si din ce semintie, de când si cum au descalecat aceste parti de pamânt, a scrie multa vreme la cumpana au statut cugetul nostru. Sa încep osteneala aceasta dupa atâtea veacuri de la descalecatul tarilor cel dintâiu de Traian împaratul Râmului cu câteva sute de ani peste mie trecute, se sparie gândul. A lasa iarasi nescris, cu mare ocara înfundat neamul acesta de o sama de scriitori, este inimii durere. Biruit-au gândul sa ma apuc de aceasta truda sa scot lumii la vedere feliul neamului, din ce isvor si semintie sânt lacuitorii tarii noastre, Moldovee si tarii Românesti si românii din tarile unguresti, cum s-au pomenit mai sus ca tot un neam si odata descalecat sânt..."

Este prin urmare iarasi ideea aceasta patriotica. Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please translate the above? I don't currently have time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Conclusions

Grigore Ureche este cel dintai care vorbeste despre originea romanilor "si toti de la rami se trag".

(Translation: Grigore Ureche is the first to mention about the ethnogenesis of romanians - "and all from Rome are coming...")

Miron Costin prin lucrarea sa De Neamul Moldovenilor continua ideile lui Ureche in legatura cu etnogeneza romanilor aducand argumente stintifice.

  • contribuie in mod esential la formarea constiintei nationale;
  • scopul scrierilor nu este numai unul informativ, ci si unul educativ.
(Translation: Miron Costin by his work "De neamul Moldovenilor"-On the origin of Moldavians) continues the ideas of Ureche regarding to the "relationship with ethnogenesis of romanians" bringing scientific arguments:
  • he contributes essentially to the forming of national conscience
  • the aim of his work is not an informal one, but also an educational one

Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please translate the above? I don't currently have time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir

Dintre toti scriitorii moldoveni acela care întrece pe toti si are un nume european este Dimitrie Cantemir. Pe lânga activitatea sa politica a fost si un mare scriitor, care avea foarte multe mijloace la îndemâna: pe de o parte avea vechea literatura moldoveana care ajunsese la o mare dezvoltare, apoi avea la îndemâna cunostinte asupra literaturii grecesti, pe care le învatase în Academia din Constantinopol, iar pe de alta parte avea cunostinte apusene, pe care le capatase prin contactul cu lumea diplomatica de la Constantinopol, unde statuse foarte multa vreme ca ostatec, trimis fiind de catre tatal sau. In sfârsit el era un orientalist caci cunostea limbile orientale.

În aceasta perioada scrie, Divanul sau gâlceava înteleptului cu lumea, prima opera scrisa în româna si tiparita la Iasi (1698); întâia scriere filozofica alcatuita de un român, prefatata de fostul sau dascal Cacavela.

Who was Dimitrie Cantemir?

Dimitrie Cantemir was a Moldavian Voivode (Prince; March-April 1693 and 1710-1711) and prolific man of letters (philosopher, historian, composer, musicologist, linguist, ethnographer, geographer) of Besserabia which included all Moldova.

În intervalul de la 1711-1719 el scrie principalele sale opere. În acest interval s-au scris operele: Istoria Imperiului Otoman, Sistemul religiei mahomedane, Hronicul vechimei a romano-moldo-vlahilor, scrisa în româna (1719-1722), cuprinde istoria noastra de la origini pâna la descalecare.

Sustine ideea cronicarilor: originea comuna a tuturor românilor, Istoria Imperiului Otoman (Cresterea si descresterea curtii otomane), la cererea Academiei din Berlin, redactata în latina între 1714-1716 si tradusa în engleza, franceza si germana, i-a creat autorului un nume de savant european, mai ales ca în 1714 fusese ales membru al Academiei din Berlin.

Descriptio Moldaviae (Descrierea Moldovei), scrisa în latina (1714-1716), la cererea Academiei din Berlin, Logica si alte lucrari mai mici. Sub influenta lui Ieremia Cacavela, D. Cantemir scrie în latineste niste compilatii filozofice. În mica sa lucrare, întitulata Ioannis Baptistae Van Helmont phisices universalis doctrina, Cantemir îsi propune sa aduca celebrului savant alchimist si medic belgian din sec. XVI-XVII lauda eruditiei lui. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please translate the above? I don't currently have time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Persecution and russification


I've seen this text on the Ukrainian language article. We should add something like this also!

Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, when Stalin had already established his firm control over the party and, therefore, the Soviet state. In December, 1932, the regional party cells received a telegram signed by Molotov and Stalin with an order to immediately reverse the korenization policies. The telegram condemned Ukrainianization as ill-considered and harmful and demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

The following years were characterized by massive repression and many hardships for the Ukrainian language and people. Some historians, especially of Ukraine, emphasize that the repression was applied earlier and more fiercely in Ukraine than in other parts of the Soviet Union, and were therefore anti-Ukrainian; others assert that Stalin's goal was the generic crushing of any dissent, rather that targeting the Ukrainians in particular.

The Stalinist era also marked the beginning of the Soviet policy of encouraging Russian as the language of (inter-ethnic) Soviet communication. Although Ukrainian continued to be used (in print, education, radio and later television programs), it lost its primary place in advanced learning and republic-wide media. Ukrainian was considered to be of secondary importance, and an excessive attachment to it was considered a sign of nationalism and so "politically incorrect". At the same time, however, the new Soviet Constitution adopted in 1936 stipulated that teaching in schools should be in native languages.

Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Remarks on recent changes

I would like to say some things.

  1. I would like to ask Ronline to always use an edit summary when he contributes. I asked this on your adminship nomination too. This article is very sensitive, and it helps a lot to see what changed when. Please write in the edit summary what you changed unless it is typos.
  2. I would like to ask Bonaparte to cool down. Nobody's going to read all that huge amount of prose you are putting on this talk page. Take it one issue at a time, you will have plenty of time to express all you think.
  3. I would like to ask Node ue to sign his posts. And if you insert your arguments inside somebody else's argument, please indent more than once, it is hard to read this way.
  4. I would like to ask Node ue and Ronline to talk more. For now, each of you does its own thing and it looks too much like a revert war. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well "all that huge" is for newbies

He asked for proofs, now he has them! For God sake he will have to translate them 'cause I won't do it for him. He is just a blatant vandal that made a revert war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30023630&oldid=30018998) here lately. Bonaparte talk & contribs 16:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not productive. Issue by issue is the way to go. And do use English, and don't tease others. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, I tend to agree with you here except for the part about using English. Certainly, I think English should be used for discussion since this is the English Wikipedia, but I think it's OK to quote people in other languages. So all of the piles and piles of stuff Bonaparte added above in Romanian are partly OK, and partly not -- the parts of them that are quotes are good, but the parts that are his original writing should be in English. --Node 22:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Oleg, sometimes it is good to move more quickly. How else would an article progress? It seems to me that everyone is on the same page here, except Node ue.
Bonaparte has gathered a very good pile of information. I feel that although it is a lot, it does touch on the same issue. Moreover, I do not think it makes a difference if it is written in Romanian or English. Normally if one is to make extensive contributions about a subject, one should be expected to know the subject well. In this case, I think that people have to know Romanian very well and/or they must have been exposed to the situation in Moldova, before they can contribute here (otherwise we will have a badly written, opinionated article). Constantzeanu 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Constantzeanu ! Bonaparte talk & contribs 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you guys see that your tactic is that "we are many, so we are right"? I am a teacher, please listen to what I am saying, it never works to tell to the student "read this huge book right now" and the student will become genius on the spot. You just want to shut Node ue up by the force of how many people you are and how much you write. Basically you ignore and revert what Node ue writes, and he is doing the same to you. You romanians are just as uncooperative as he is. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm, Oleg I never ignored what Node ue said. If I were to do that I would have written that Moldovan is Romanian and that is that. I have come up with a very good argument. Basically, all I did was to adjust the language which to me seemed very biased in favour of the "Moldovenist thesis". Besides, all this "you Romanians", "us Russians/Moldovans" is not very productive, nor very nice since you generalize. Let's try not to involve nationality and ethnicity here, ok? Some people could be offended by that, you know. You don't see me saying stuff like "you Moldovans/Russians", etc. etc. Not all Romanians are uncooperative. As far as I see it, we are all individuals here and we all contribute to the best of our abilities. Constantzeanu 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


If Bonaparte, Constantzeanu, and Anittas took an approach of "Let's discuss things rationally with real linguistic arguments and sources and a point-by-point discussion", as I have tried to initiate many times (it worked well between me and Ronline, and for a little bit between me and Dpotop, but Bonaparte totally ignored it), instead of working on the "we are many, so we are right" principle (as Oleg calls it), I don't think either side would be constantly reverting. The reason I remove all objectionable edits is because it seems there is no room for discussing anything. If I don't remove an edit I don't like, later somebody claims that I can't remove it because it's been in the article already. If I make objections on the talkpage, nobody responds, or if they do, it's Bonaparte saying something like "Too bad everybody else agrees on it" or something else empty like that. --Node 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhhm... Node ue, please be careful when you make such accusations. I am for discussing things. I have never added or reverted something without talking about it here first. It is you that always changes things without consulting anyone else. Why are you so persistant in making the article so one-sided. Did Romanians do something to you? I think that if this were another page or another article, you would just be blocked for vandalism. Constantzeanu 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG KID! You never accept a compromise and you're just a blatant vandal that makes an edit war here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30023630&oldid=30018998). That's all. Good luck for translation. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not productive. Issue by issue is the way to go. And don't tease others. Node 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's see you in action. You're the one who doesn't agree with the current version. The majority agree with it and me also. Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

...This is not productive. Issue by issue is the way to go. And don't tease others. Node 22:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The (n+2) times when Node alias Mark Williamson makes unilateral changes

This is the (n+2) times when this quy Node alias Mark Williamson makes unilateral changes. I repeat one more time and maybe for the last time: YOU DID NOT REACHED CONSENSUS and nobody agrees with you. You are alone in your position and as I said before you are just making an edit war here. In the last 3 days you've made more then 9 edits and no person agreed with you! It seems to me that you don't care and you're not even trying to reach an consensus here. Don't worry we have a solution for this kind of guys.

Yesterday I said this. But now this guy continues with his outrageous behaviour! He DID NOT REACHED CONSENSUS, he made unilateral changes [[3]], he is just a blatant vandal who makes a revert war. You are alone in your position. Now in 4 days all that he made was just a trolling revert war. I didn't even edit once but he made an inacceptable revert war. Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You accuse me of not trying to reach consensus. Does that mean that you are trying to reach consensus? Whether or not you agree with my edits is irrelevant. I have given sources for every statement I've added. So, would you like to challenge the sources? --Node 22:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moldovan_language/Archive_7&oldid=1080945120"