Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 5

How about international views?
A further thing I'd like to add - there was previously in the article a mention about how the US Department of State recognises the language as Romanian, not Moldovan, etc. I think it's important to mention that many (in fact, probably most) international organisations (and corporations like Microsoft) recognise Moldova's main language as "Romanian". In MS Word, for example, there is Romanian (Moldova) and no Moldovan. Ronline 11:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * IBM has in its intranet profile pages ('blue pages') *three* languages to choose from. :-)
 * Romanian (Romania)
 * Romanian (Moldova, Republic of)
 * Moldovan
 * Also, several years ago I saw on the label of a packet of biscuits information in (RO) and (MD). In Romanian, the regular language was used, but in Moldovan it was without any words borrowed in the last 200 years. So, for "vegetable oils" ("uleiuri vegetale") was "uleiuri din ierburi". :-) But haven't seen since different language labels. bogdan 13:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! THIS IS TRUE! I was just about to say this also! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.79.157 (talk • contribs).

So, something along these lines should be re-inserted:

Ethnologue's Moldova page [2] and the U.S. Department of State [3] both say that Romanian is the official language of Moldova, although this is inaccurate in the sense that, while many believe Romanian and Moldovan to be the same language, the constitution of Moldova specifies "Moldovan" as the official language rather than "Romanian".

There are many other organisations too, which I am finding out about now. Ronline 11:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

USDoS and others are political turncoats. For 70 years it was Moldovan language for them, now over the dead corpse of the Soviet Union they are happy to disappear it. Not to say that it is outright false statement. As long as Moldova says it, its official language is Moldovan.

But I do agree that a phrase, kind of "there is a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian. For example, USDoS and <> state that... " You don't need to put a long list of "other organisations" here. mikka (t) 18:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

>>repetition removed<<

Signing posts
Please sign your posts. mikka (t) 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not blog
As good as it is what is posted above, we are here to discuss changes to the artile. Please write the proposed changes, each change in one place, not in repetitive sections, and they will be discussed.

One reminder, this is an encyclopedia article which explains what "Moldovan language" is, not an article to prove that it does not exist. mikka (t) 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well again, in this case it must explain that "Moldovan language" is identical despite the different name. :)
 * The article explains something like this, but not extremist terms. mikka (t) 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody will say: "please Mikka add this argument"
If you think that people will beg you to add a text you are wrong!
 * You don't have to beg, but until you learn to behave in civilized way the article will be blocked. This is a standard way in wikipedia to deal with heated conflicts when people lose their heads. mikka (t) 18:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * - it is self evidence that are identical and you cannot prove the contrary, do you? :)
 * This is not a place to prove or to disprove anything. This is not a debate forum. And I am not going to prove anything. Only facts and published opinions are allowed in wikipedia articles. So for starters, please try to figure out the difference between "fact" and "opinion". One small explanation: in wikipedia, an opinion published in a reputable source is a fact. But in conflicting cases opinions may be included only with authorsip and exact reference must be given upon request. mikka (t) 18:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you're not an expert let this on the hands of experts,...


 * They allready said once that are identical....:)

Except the fact that you continue to have BIAS edits, have you anything else to say?
Except the fact that you continue to have BIAS edits, have you anything else to say?
 * MIkka you didn't answear!

This article should be erased or blocked
Don't panic. mikka (t) 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently though, the article has a number of problems. What does this sentence mean "Moldovan in its official form is near-identical to Romanian"?

So "Moldovan in its un-official form" does not? What is the un-official form of Moldovan? Is it the speech in the villages? Or the slang in some Russian neighborhoods of Chisinau which contains some Russian words? I am sorry but then we can start talking about the "un-official" form of the Russian spoken in Kaliningrad, the one spoken in Vladivostok and how the unofficial form of Russian spoken in Sankt Petersburg is different then the one in Moscow.
 * A speech of willages, cities, you name it, is called "spoken language" in linguistics. And people do speak of Russian spoken in Kostroma or Samara. mikka (t) 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, the "un-official" form in Texas is very different then the one in New York.
 * Likewise, many knwo this because this is discussed.

To talk about the "un-official" forms of a language shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of what a language is and what this article is supposed to talk about. The article is called "Moldovan language".
 * Please refrain from remarks about knowledge of editors. there are well-recognized notions in linguistics of "spoken language" and "language norm". mikka (t) 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please notice the distinction between th terms Official language and Standard language. mikka (t) 19:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

A language is the language that is official. Moldova has an official language and it has an institution that regulates it. If some people want to talk about a certain slang, then that does not belong here but in a separate article.
 * An institution can regulate only the language norm. Slang is an integral part of language. mikka (t) 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html) seems to have a very balanced way of addressing the matter. It reconciles the truth as well as reality.

Officially, the language is called “Moldovan”. That is reality: it is an article in the constitution of Moldova. In truth, the language is virtually the same as the Romanian language and it is widely accepted by most people inside Moldova as well as most people in the world. The wording therefore should be changed to match that.

Also, Transnistria as far as I know is a rebel region, unrecognized as a separate state. It has three official languages but its constitution is not recognized by Moldova or any other state so de jure, Moldovan/Romanian is the only official language there as well.

Now about the 1.2 million people that speak Moldovan, I am sorry but the official center of statistics of Moldova has not made any declarations yet. Until it will do so, we should not have any mentioning of numbers. The fact that newspapers reported that 60% of ethnic Romanians/Moldovans said they speak Romanian is probably true but by no means is it an exact number and it does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.
 * That's what I thought. I asked about this in the talk page a while ago, but during the heated discussions my simple question was ignored. Article corrected. mikka (t) 18:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Constantzeanu 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the article cover not only what "limba moldovenească" is today, but what it was 60 and 600 years ago. mikka (t) 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What Constantzeanu says is very interesting and must be followed. It must state from the beginning that the languages are identical despite their different name. I agree with this. (Anyway this is the first point (1) on the list!)
 * This opinion is in the intro. mikka (t) 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mikka why don't you let like that? that the languages are identical despite their different namewhy this bothers you so much?
 * The official languages will be identical when it will be officially declared in the constitution or by other governing body. But then most probably it will be simply renamed. mikka (t) 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Again false statement
Well the text below is false.


 * "At the same time, there are differences in vernacular, most significantly due to the heavy influence of the Russian language in Moldova."

How can you explain that despite the so long russian influence there are not differences in vernacular? Because the languages are identical, not near-identical
 * Your opinion is disagreed. mikka (t) 18:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, yours is disagreed. The languages are identical, not near-identical (this thing says also CIA, ONU, EU, USA, GERMANY, FRANCE, UK... and so on,
 * The opinions of USA, CIA, and so on are called "intervention into the internal affairs". Only Moldova has final say here. What it said so far is already mentioned in the intro. mikka (t) 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Reminder: Any editors posting personal attacks will be blocked from editing. mikka (t) 19:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Few people familliar with the facts of the case would see it as harassment, I wager.


 * Those who edits in a controversial way, why are not blocked?
 * Those who edits and supports old, Soviet/Communist way why are not blocked?
 * Those who edits and curse others, like Mark (Node) why are not blocked?

Anyway I agree with you that any form of personal attack is not good for the evolution of the article.

As I said some days ago (in archives) in this page, I am not here to exercise justice and punish. I am here to make this discussion to change from revert war to an orderly way. I don't have any political views with respect to Moldova, Zimbabwe, Azore Islands, etc. mikka (t) 19:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

change the phrase into: Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian
The phrase "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is near-identical to Romanian" must be changed into:''' "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is identical to Romanian". '''

The written forms of the two languages have one tiny difference - the Â/Î issue, therefore they are not identical. Near-identical sounds quite acceptable IMO. IulianU 19:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh,,,, :) that's an old issue now. :)
 * Well, both countries are using both systems. And they are identical. Just read the papers Timpul from MD(Â), and EVENIMENTUL ZILEI in RO (Î). So we should let identical.


 * Hey, we're talking about the official form. The Academy of Sciences of Moldova still maintains the Î spelling.
 * And please don't use big headings where they don't belong, and please sign your posts. IulianU 19:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys: the î/â issue is an issue of spelling. It is not an issue of language. I can give you 1000 examples of how English in USA and English in Canada and English in the U.K. are all different from each other in terms of spelling. All three call their language the same: "English". There is no such thing as an "official Canadian language which is near identical to English spoken in Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If someone would say that in an encyclopedia entry or in a scholarly article, I think he/she would be laughed at.

About the numbers, I see Mikka has erased the percentiles. That is great. Now we should also erase the 1.2 million since that number was estimated by someone on the talkpage based on those appreciations, which Mikka rightfully erased.

I will also improve the introduction and I would like everyone to read it so we can establish something we can all agree on.

About the CIA World-factbook, we should make a very clear difference between the CIA as an organization and the CIA World-factbook which serves as a reliable source of information, especially among scholarly articles.

Also we should keep in mind that organizations outside Moldova which state their opinions about its language, may interfere with the independence of that country and that only Moldova can say what language it speaks. However we should also note that Moldova is a very fractionalized country, where no one clear opinion prevails. There are members of the Communist party there, who refer to the language also as “Romanian” ( the communist party is the only major party which has members that still maintain the Stalinist-Moldovenist theories). So if even inside the communist party there is disagreement, then one can safely say that the country does not really have a unified view of its language or identity of its natives. This is reflected in the fact that almost always the language is called “state language”(therefore avoiding to call it either Romanian or Moldovan) or “Romanian” in public, while almost never being called “Moldovan”. Constantzeanu 19:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, is unacceptable.
I noticed some changes Mikkalai recently made to this article which are unacceptable.


 * Real census data (cited Gardianul) replaced with the statement "In fact, a number of high-ranked Moldovan officials declared in public that Moldovan and Romanian are the same." This is unacceptable because it uses the weaselly phrase "a number of". In addition, it is biased because it excludes the fact that a number of (different) high-ranked Moldovan officials have also declared in public that Moldovan and Romanian are *not* the same.
 * "A number of" is not weasely. What do you expect? "37 officials"? Real census data are not officially released. Therefore the Guardianul data (which btw put it in this way: 40% of population declared their langauge Romanian) are moved below, but not deleted. It does not exclude others, precisely because it says "a number", but not "all". If you have a quote of the opposite, please provide it, to be included beside the Ion Morei's. mikka (t) 02:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not using the word "weaselly" in a general sense, I'm using it in terms of Wikipedia policy. Either you say "so-and-so person says this...", or you don't include it at all. "A number of..." or "Many..." are weasel terms, see WP:AWT. The point of that is, there are _also_ politicians who consider it as a separate language. When you have two groups of people with opposing opinions, it should be a given that _both_ opinions exist. Neither needs to be stated explicitly, and if you do, "many people" or "a number of" is inappropriate -- you have to give specific names. Also, you replaced a well-sourced statement (40% Romanian + 33% Moldovan, iirc -- 73% total, from which the new percentages were calculated) with a completely unsourced weasel term. --Node 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Ureche section has been changed to boldface. Ureche's statements were not so strong -- if I recall correctly, he said that the languages of the Wallachians and the Moldavians were close. And I'll reiterate, it says "and Wallachian _are_...". This is talking about an ancient source, which was commenting on the situation at that time. It should be changed to "were".
 * Grammar done. At the same time, I am still patiently waiting when someone finds out what exactly Ureche said. This is a delicate issue, and unless the correct original is provided, the phrase will be deleted. For example, Ureche nowhere said "Wallachians" in this context AFAIK. Obviously, polictical flaming is much more fun than to read some old texts, even if they are available online. mikka (t) 02:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I, for one, don't see that Ureche's text is particularly important here. Anittas wanted so badly for it to be included in the first place, he should formulate a new version of the statement if he wants so much to keep it in the article -- I, for one, don't care one way or the other, despite the fact that to a great degree quotes from Ureche can also be used to show the _dis_unity of Moldovan and Wallachian speeches of the time. --Node 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "and thay had to do this as a prerequisite for" is not only badly spelt, it is also grammatically unnatural to the extreme. "prerequisite" already indicates a _requirement_. Thus, this statement is redundant.
 * Which requirement? Answer: knowledge of Russian. And they "had to do this", i.e., had to learn Russian. Please suggest a better phrasing. mikka (t) 02:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's just it. You're not seeming to understand the definition of prerequisite. Prerequisite means, quite literally, something that you must do before you can do something else. It is redundant to say "had to do... as a prerequisite", because the definition of "prerequisite" includes the "had to" already. --Node 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Best,

Mark

...by the way, it would be nice if the anon vandal did something illegal so the police could track them down and arrest them so they'd stop adding loads of unuseful text to the talkpage. --Node 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To Mark Williamson - Node_ue: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page and keep inflammatory edits, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Remind me, who are you? --Node 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mark your comments are not really constructive and your last comment there seems rather silly and has no place here. Constantzeanu 20:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And how are they not constructive? I could say the same about your comments. It's a subjective matter. --Node 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not constructive because accusations and the usage of strong words do not help at all towards making it more NPOV. Also saing that you hope for someone to be cought by the police and arrested just because you do not like his/her remarks here is also rather silly and do not help.Constantzeanu 23:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Accusations and the usage of strong words? You're saying this to me? What about Bonaparte and Anittas, who inserted lots of very terrible insults to this page (they were removed by Mikka, so you can't see them here now)?? Or the anon user who has said some very nasty things on user talkpages? I personally wouldn't consider myself to use strong words, but even if I did, many people in this debate have behaved much worse than have I, and yet you have chosen to focus on me. Interesting... --Node 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Will Moldova join EU or Romania?
According to the russian newspaper, version on-line:

at Moscow were talks of Union of Moldova with Romania to become part of the Greater Romania.

"Romania negociaza cu Rusia formarea Romaniei Mari 16 noiembrie 2005".

There are two perspectives:
 * 1). with Romania first, since Romania will be in 13 months an EU State - [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|80px]]
 * 2). after.

Moldova will reunite with Romania, but probably after 2013. --Anittas 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Anittas, this is irrelevant. People keep posting things which are not about this article, and it's cluttering up the talkpage. Already, there are 3 archived pages thanks to you and your friends inserting extremely long passages about political matters that don't belong here! --Node 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is very relevant to this debate. Why should be a debate that two coutries with different languages unite together? And the only answear is that they do have the same language, same culture, same history, same people.


 * Also, I searched Google News for all recent news about Moldova. The closest I found to what you're saying is http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/6687/ . Any plan to unite Moldova and Romania would certainly be in the headlines. All I found was news about Romania giving Moldova assistance for acceeding to the EU. Union of Romania and Moldova doesn't seem probable at present, I think most likely it would cause ethnic rioting and a breakout of violence. Voronin would be a fool if he didn't realise that a huge portion of his constituency would strongly oppose such a move, and even more of a fool if he didn't forsee ethnic conflict arising from such a move. The reaction of Gagauzia alone would be poor, but that doesn't count the reaction of urban residents of Kishinau and Bender who are Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusans, Bulgarians, Germans, mixed population, and Moldovenists (yes, there are real Romanian/Moldovans in Moldova who are also Moldovenists). --Node 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why after 2013. Just the same one could say after 2009 (when hopefully the communists will be out of power). I think they will unite too, just not with a Moldova that includes Transnistria.


 * Mark, first of all Moldovans are not likely to start riots because they are going to unite with Romania. The problem lies in Voronin who would never do something like that. Union is not in his vocabulary. It has nothing to do with the electorate. Even if tomorrow 99% of Moldovans would ask for union, he would still not do it.


 * The reaction in Gagauzia would indeed be negative since Gagauzians(about 150.000) are Turkish but still russian speakers and generally not very pro-Romanian.


 * The other minorities you made refference to are not exclusively concentrated in Chisinau and Tighina(Bender). Bulgarians(about 60.000) live mostly in Taraclia, in the south. I don't think they would be very opposed. Ukrainians(about 250.000) live mostly in Balti and the north but also in the capital. They are rather indifferent. Jews are very few left(maybe less then 15.000) compared to 1989(many went to Israel after 1991) and I think they would not care either. Germans are almost all gone but the few left would probably salute the idea. Russians(less then 200.000) indeed live mostly in Chisinau(not Kishinau). Among all ethnic groups Russians are most fearful of a reunification since they see their influence decreasing in a much larger Romania.


 * About Tighina, I don't know if you knew this but Tighina is not under Moldovan control. Although in Bessarabia, Tighina is under Transnistrian control.


 * There is a good map(although a little outdated) on the Moldova page. Go see it for more info. I hope I clarified for you the issue with the minorities.


 * Now having said that I think that talking about union here is really going on a tangent. I am wondering who has locked the site and also why we do not also erase all numbers about speakers since they are based on the previous supposition from newspapers( which Mikka erased).Constantzeanu 23:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The chances of Romania uniting with Moldova are quite low. A state union wouldn't be good for either sides, and the inclusion of Romania into Moldova without any administrative devolution would probably not be agreed by the Romanians more than the Moldovans, for both social and economic reasons. Having a large and quite hostile Russian, Ukrainian, and to an extent Gagauz minority wouldn't be positive for Romania, while economically Moldova would weaken the Romanian economy. So 2013 is surely too early a date. Considering Moldova will only join the EU in 2020 by the earliest, a union with Romania may not even take place. Though I agree that as Moldova stabilises and grows economically, feelings on both sides of the Prut are becoming more conducive to union. Ronline 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably many people belonging to the minorities would accept it, since that would mean they'd get in the European Union, however this is not the place to discuss this, since this is is a talk page about the language! If you really want, you can create a page on the Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova and take the issue to the talk page there. :-) bogdan 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)