Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Moldavian-Romanian

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moldovan-Romanian Wikipedia[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Moldavian-Romanian)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This is not a request for a new language. Consequently it is not within the remit of the language committee unsigned by GerardM 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Note, for clarity: Moldopodo is not proposing to create a new Wikipedia, but merely to rename an existing one (ro: into mo-ro:). - Ev 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace this line with your opening argument in favour of the new project.

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Multilingualism EU Commissioner, May 22, 2008: "The EC position is that any state may name its language however it pleases. The Commission is aware that a member state - Romania - has a problem with the "Moldovan Language" and acts consequently. The official EC documents no longer use the 'Moldovan Language' expression" [2]
  • Radio Free Europe's comment on the existence of the "Moldovan language": "It is Voronin who has carried the torch in Moldova's quest for linguistic independence since he took power in 2001." [3]
  • You cannot assert "Moldovan language exists as". The project was both frozen and closed on 21 June 2006 [4] based on a similar discussion [5]. Adriatikus 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Take English Wikipedia, we have an article History of Romanian language[6] with basic references as hypothetical, believed to be, and compare it to the article History of the Moldavian language[7], with exact references, which date back as far as to 14-15th century (I did not hear of Stalin at that time). The term Moldavian language has therefore nothing to do with Russian (well there are about 20% of Slavic vocabulary) or Romanian languages, as at least for the latter it clearly preceeds it (Romanian language). The term "Romanian language" appeared later, and was established once Romania was created in 1878 (nationalistic movements in Western Europe, freemasons exporting it to Eastern Europe, Kogalniceanu, etc.). Moldavian state, just as well as Moldavian nation and Moldavian language are officially recognised at international level, including UN and EU for example, OSCE and others. Moreover, Moldova, by the decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova is going to celebrate 650th Anniversary of foundation of the Moldavian state in 2009 as the successor of the Moldavian Principality, which never spoke a language called RomanianDecree of the President of the RM. The above cited dictionary is not a piece of crap (what a strong argument again!), but shows how different is the spoken village dialect of Moldavian in Moldova. Yes, the title says: Romanian-Moldavian, but bearing in mind that the official written Moldavian is the same as official written Romanian, one can easily uderstand the point of this dictionary - to show the local dialectal colors.--Moldopodotalk 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no sources prior to 1940 to explicitly assert the existence of a stand-alone Moldavian language; if there are any, this would be the best place to disclose them. --Gutza 09:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Moldovan prince Laţcu (ca. 1365-1373), son of the very first ruler of Moldova, was recognized as duke of Moldova by the Holy See, and the recognition letters called him duke of Moldavia or Vlach nation: dux Moldavie partium seu nationis Wlachie. The Polish chronicler, Jan Długosz, remarked as early as 1476 that Moldavians and Wallachians "share a language and customs"[1] [2] [3] References to a "Moldavian language" can be found in works as early as Grigore Ureche's The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia (1640s). Firs texts in Moldavian appear in the 15 — 16 centuries as translations of the Slavic religious books.[4] The first alphabet used is Cyrillic (until 19 century), later - Russian Cyrillic alphabet. Literary language began to shape in 16-17 centuries, but was finally shaped in the second half of the 19 century. Latin alphabet used again since 1991.--Moldopodotalk 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
N.B. Grigore Ureche's chronicle leisurely interchanges "Romanian language" with "Moldovan language" without any explanation to the reader (the way one typically uses synonyms). Also, those "first texts in Moldavian" he's referring to are as Romanian as they are Moldovan (half of Moldavia is now Romanian; the other half is in the Republic of Moldova; they did indeed use the term "Moldavian" at the time to differentiate from Wallachian and Transylvanian texts; however, no text prior to the Soviet annexation explicitly designates a stand-alone Moldovan language). --Gutza 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd add as a independent international language, not a dialect, variety or similar things. Also, the Moldovian language is older that Romanian, historically. --Serhio 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no sources prior to the 20th century that mention a Moldavian language. If you know of any, let us know. Also, Wallachia was founded a little earlier than Moldavia--and Wallachins, just like Moldavians and the Romanian population of Transylvania, reportedly called their language for "rumâneste." --Anittas 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a shame to lie so blatantly. I can certainly recopy each time those sources (which are already present on this very page) as a reply to such an exteme POV answer baldly negating the existence of obvious terms confirmed on numerous occasions on this very same page.--Moldopodotalk 10:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources that you speak of were added me by (check the history) and they don't mention a Moldovan language. The source mentioning Latcu actually puts him in the Vlach nation, which means Romanian. --Anittas 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
N.B.: Both of Serhio's arguments are at least controversial (see below). --Gutza 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a shame that a user like en:User:Gutza is in plus to these nauseating lies, is an administrator at English Wikipedia. This is not even an extreme POV, it's a mere banal negation of any evidence, based on the childish principle: "I said I do not like it and nothing will make me like it". Try to learn such concepts as neutrality, objectivity and politeness... oh well...--Moldopodotalk 10:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both? There is only one. see bellow are you kidding? :) --Serhio 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whenever you find a minute, read what you wrote above -- there are two arguments there. --Gutza 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd prefer to name it Moldo-Romanian, instead of Moldovian-Romanian. I really doubt about international recognition of Moldovan language, but or we delete the, or we create the Moldo-Romanian page... --Serhio 13:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with "Moldo-Romanian" is that it makes reference to one language which does not exist under such name. We, do in fact, have two different official and internationally recognised names for the same language, that is why, IMHO, Moldavian-Romanian or Moldavian/Romanian should be the proper name.--Moldopodo 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did just that, here's what I saw:
  • Did you know that the oldest attempt at drama in the Romanian language was Occisio Gregorii in Moldavia Vodae tragice expressa (The Murder of Grigore Vodă in Moldova, expressed as a tragedy).
  • Did you know The journal Zimbrulu şi Vulturulu was a journal which was printed in Moldavia in the 19th century. A copy of this journal has ended up being the most expensive paper in the world.
  • Community The policy on Romanian spelling is here (it points to the policy which allows for both spellings, with "â" and with "î"; the latter used to be official in RM until recently).
  • Community There are over 13 800 localities in Romania and 1 500 in the Republic of Moldova. We have an article for each of them. We invite you to write about the localities you prefer.
Not too shabby, I'd say. --Gutza 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man, all this is about Romania, maybe a little about the old Moldova region. There is only one mention about Republic of Moldova about the communities' number. In rest, the news and information are exclusively from and about Romania. There are the also the Romanian map. A wikipedia in a language that is spoken in more than one country shouldn't be so national oriented. As Moldovans have a internationally recognized language, than they have all right to ask, and his rights in wikipedia community. Only the fact that Romanians are more numerous in wiki brings so many revolts. Romania has lost Moldova, and should take the situation as it is. The recognition is international and the rights should be equal for any country and language. --Serhio 07:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hang on, let's take your arguments one at a time:
  1. There is only one mention about the Republic of Moldova about the number of localities -- true, but there is one single Romanian-specific static piece of information on the entire page (an invitation to join the Wikiproject "The Cities of Romania". Which just happens to be a project initiated by a guy, if tomorrow someone else starts Wikiproject "The Cities of RM" I don't see why it wouldn't go on the front page as well. Apart from that, there are actually more static references to Moldova/Moldavia than there are to Romania.
  2. The news are exclusively from and about Romania. Yes, we do tend to have a lot more activity related to Romania than we have about RM, but that's only because most of the contributors hail from Romania. We can't help that, there are simply less people in RM than there are in Romania.

"most of the contributors hail from Romania". I believe that most of fr wikipedia are from France, but the French page isn't so national oriented like ro one. Unfortunately, Romanians does not have a multicultural and multiethnical culture, living in a country based on the nation and thinking in a national manner. --Serhio 12:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. There is even a map -- you mean this one. That's the news section, and there have been local elections in Romania; the map shows the distribution of political parties in the territory as a result of the recent elections. Just a few days ago we had some news about Nepal and nobody suggested we're too Nepal-centric.
The part about Moldovan rights (I assume you're talking from a moral point of view) has been addressed below. --Gutza 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the part about Moldovan rights was addressed below - finally you agree to rename ro into mo-ro.--Moldopodotalk 10:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No; I also tried to remove your remark since it was pointless once you knew that you "misunderstood", but it seems like you're intent on keeping this page as long as possible, contrary to your claims otherwise. --Gutza 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moldavian Language - ancient history[edit]

Here is a copy paste of the Descriptio Moldaviae by Dimitrie Cantemir[8] --Moldopodotalk 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


De linguae moldavicae origine diversa scriptores tenet sententia, plures eam e latino sermone nullo alius idiomatis habito respectu corruptam existimant, sunt et qui ex italica dialecto eam derivatam esse arbitrantur. Utrorumque argumenta, quo magis lectori pateat veritas, candide exponemus. Qui latinam linguam propriam et genuinam moldavicae matrem asserunt, his potissimum fundamentis nituntur: primo, colonias Romanas longe ante in Daciam translatas fuisse, quam per Gothorum Vandalorumque irruptiones Romanus sermo in Italia corrumperetur: neminem autem historicorum memoriae prodere, eas sub Barbarorum regno Latium repetiisse, adeoque non potuisse Daciae incolas, a lingua quae nondum erat, suam corrumpere.

Secundo, Moldavos se nunquam Italos nominasse, quod sequentibus temporibus latius Romanorum nomen esse coepit, sed semper Romanorum appellationem retinuisse, quae illo aevo, cum orbis terrarum caput Romae esset, cunctis Italiae incolis erat communis. Neque obstat, quod a finitimis Hungaris et Polonis Vlochvocentur, quod idem apud eas gentes Italorum nomen est. Mallemus enim credere vicinas illas gentes magis a Moldavis, ut notioribus sibi, ad Italos, quam ab Italis ad Moldavos appellationem eam transtulisse.

Tertium et potissimum pro ea sententia argumentum est, quod in moldava lingua plura adhuc vocabula latina inveniantur, quae italica prorsus ignorat, vicissim nomina et verba a Gothis, Vandalis et Longobardis in Italorum sermonem introducta penitus fugiat moldava, ut id paucis reddamus clarius: incipio, Italus per vocem barbaram commincio exprimit, Moldavus vocabulo e latina dialecto corrupto, inczep. Albus, italice bianco, mold. alb. Civitas, italice citta, mold. czetate. Dominus, italice signore, moldavice domn. Mensa, italice tavola, mold. masa. Verbum, ital. parola, mold. vorba. Caput, italice testa, mold. cap. Venatio ital. caccia, mold. venat.

Qui autem ex italica dialecto derivare volunt moldavum sermonem, obiiciunt 1. in eo inveniri verba auxiliaria: am, ai, are. 2. articules nominum. 3. aliquot etiam vocabula pure italica, ut szkiop, sciopo, claudus, et czerc, cerco, quae cum prorsus linguae latinae igota sint, nnon aliunde nisi ex italica peti potuissent.

Respondetur ad id a prioris sententiae patronis: Auxiliaribus quidem verbis uti Moldavos, at non italicis, sed peculiaribus. Articulorum eadem est ratio, nulla enim orationis parte magis quam iis ipsis moldavus sermo ab italico discrepat. Italus articulum suum nomini praeponit, Moldavus postponit, ut Ital.: L’huomo, la moglie, Mold. omul, muiere. Italus unum habet articulum masculini, in singulari il, in plurali gli vel i, in femineo singulari la, plur. le. Moldavi autem in singulari masculino duos habent articulos, ul et le, unum, quem nominibus in consonantem desinentibus, alterum, quem in vocalem exeuntibus suffigunt: ut omul, homo, calul, equus, scaunul, scamnum, vasul, vas, szerpele, serpens, kynele, canis, etc. In plurali animatorum nominibus articulum ii addunt, ut: caii, oamenii, equi, homines; inanimata vero articulo femineo ele efferuntur, ut: scaunele, vassele, etc. Femininorum Moldavi itidem duos articulos habent, e et a, ut muiere, gaina, mulier, gallina. Quae in e desinunt, in plurali ile formantur, ut muiere muierile, quae autem in a, pluralem per ele efferunt, ut gaina gainele.

Denique voces illas, quae italico propius accedunt, quam antiquo romano sermoni, e diuturno Genuensium commercio, quod iis, dum Ponti Euxini littora tenerent, cum Moldavis intercesserat, in nostram linguam haud absona forte coniectura irrepsisse crederes. Pari enim ratione, posteaquam cum Graecis, Turcis, et Polonis crebra negotia habere Moldavi coeperunt, ex illarum quoque gentium dialectis plura vocabula Moldavorum ore teri coeperunt, ut a Graecis:















Iam vero expositis utriusque partis argumentis, quae propius accedant veritati definire non audemus, metu ne amor patriae nobis obstruat oculos, nostroque conspectui aliqua subducat, quae alienis facile paterent luminibus. Relinquimus itaque iudicium lectori benevolo, unicum id Covatii effatum addere contenti. Mirum, ait ille, quod Moldavorum Valachorumque lingua plura habeat latina vocabula, quam italica, licet Italus ibidem sedes habeat, ubi olim Romanus habitabat. Sed idem haud mirum. Itali enim longe post sibi linguam excogitaverunt. Caeterum observandum, reperiri in Moldavorum lingua aliquot vocabula, quae cum tam latinae, quam reliquis vicinarum gentium dialectis incognita sint, ex antiqua Dacica remansisse forsitan haud sine ratione existimamus. Neque enim obstat quidquam, quo minus credamus Romanorum in Dacia colonias, vel servis Dacis usos fuisse, vel etiam, si quis uxorem perdiderat, mulierculas ex illa gente in matrimonium duxisse, unde facile indigenarum aliqua vox in illorum sermonem irrepere potuit. Tales sunt: stezar, quercus, padure, sylva, halesteu, stagnum, carare, semita, graesk, loquor, privesk, aspicio, nemeresk, aliquo pervenio.

Praeterea, uti cunctae fere linguae, ita et moldava diversas patitur dialectos. Purissimus sermo in medio Moldaviae circa Iassios viget, quod continua aulae principalis praesentia cultiores vulgo evadunt illius agri coloni. Qui ad Tyratem habitant, multa polonica intermiscent, et plura vasa domesticis usibus inservientia polonicis denominant vocabulis, ita ut ab alio Moldavo vix intelligi possint. Qui in alpibus versus Transylvaniam vivunt, saepius hungaricis utuntur vocibus, Falczienses tartarico, Galaczienses graeco turcicoque sermone moldavum corrumpunt.

Mulieres quoque moldavae peculiarem a viris pronunciationem habent. Mutant enim syllabas bi et vi in gi, ut: bine, bene, gine, vie, vinea, gie; pi in ki: pizma, invidia, kizma, piatra, petra, kiatra. M initiale in ng litteram, vix aliis pronunciabilem, ut mie, mihi, ngie etc. Qui semel e viris etiam ei pronunciationi assuetus fuerit, vix ac ne vix quidem ab ea liberari potest, et ceu sorex suo ore semper prodit, se nimis diu in matris sinu moratum fuisse, qua de re etiam tales vulgo ficior de baba, filii vetulae, per contemtum dicuntur.

Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior, ut dziur, Vlachus proferet zur, jur, per z polonicum sive jgallicum; Dumnedzeu, Deus, val. Dumnezeu: akmu, nunc, val. akuma, aczela hic, val: ahela. Addidere etiam aliquot vocabula Moldavis ignota, quae tamen omnia dum scribunt omittunt. Moldavicam et linguam et orthographiam sequuntur, adeoque re ipsa moldavicam sua puriorem agnoscunt, licet verbis id profiteri ea quae Moldavos etValachos intercedit antipathia prohibeat.

Corruptiori multo utuntur idiomate Cuzzo-Valachi, qui in Rumelia ad fines Macedoniae habitant. Mirandum in modum illi patriam sibi linguam cum graeca et albanica miscent, ita ut nonnunquam pure graecam, aliquando pure albanam periodum sermoni valachico interponant, retentis tamen ubique moldavicis nominum verborumque flexionibus. Talem ollo potriginem, ipsi quidem inter se intelligunt, sed nec Graecus, nec Albanus, nec Moldavus sermonem ipsorum integre capere potest. Quod si tamen omnes tres uno in loco collecti Cuzzovlachum loquentem audirent, collatis sententiis, si quilibet suae linguae periodum alteri interpretaretur, quid is sibi vellet, intelligere possent.


Ante conciliabulum Florentinum, exemplo reliquarum gentium qui e Romano sermone suas linguas corrupere, latinis Moldavi utebantur characteribus. At cum in ea synodo Moldaviae metropolita, uti supra diximus, ad castra Latinorum defecisset, successor eius, Marci Ephesi diaconus, gente Bulgarus, nomine Theoctistus, quo magis eradicaret e Moldava ecclesia Latinorum fermenta, iuvenibu sque occasionem legendorum latinorum sophismatum adimeret, Alexandro Bono suasit ut non solum homines diversa de sacris sentientes, sed et latinas litteras e principatu suo exulare iuberet, et iis slavonicas substitueret, eoque nimio et intempestivo zelo illius barbariei, quae nunc Moldaviam tenet, primus auctor extitit; cum autem slavonici characteres non sufficerent pronunciationi omnium vocabulorum, quae moldavica lingua partim e latina corruperat, partim e vicinarum gentium dialectis adoptaverat, rite exprimendae, aliquot novi etiam characteres excogitari debuerunt, quo factum est, ut tantum litterarum numerum postea moldavicus sermo acceperit, quantum nulla alia Europeorum dialectus patitur.

Numerantur enim hodie, cum prosodicis quibusdam orthographicisque notis, 47:































olim vocem, quae in consonantem desinebat, semper claudebat, hodie autem Moldavi eius loco utuntur signo supraposito, ut in ipsa voce iert.
















Maiusculae Moldavorum litterae eaedem sunt, quas Graeci Slavonique in suis alphabetis habent: utroque enim charactere pari ratione utuntur.

Atque eos quidem, quos nunc lectori ob oculos posuimus, characteres, in epistolis familiaribus et privatis catalogis, Moldavi post eliminatas latinas litteras adhibere coeperunt, in sacris vero, epistolis principum, catalogis thesauri, et aliis, quae ex aula emanabant, scriptionibus, non alia nisi slavonica lingua per integra duo saecula in usu fuit. Hinc etiam nobilium filii non alii sermoni nisi slavonico dabant operam, in quo cum aliae scientiae tradi non possent, postquam legere didicissent, Horologium orientalis ecclesiae, Octoichon et Psalterium memoriae mandare iubebantur. His finitis, Evangelium, Apostolica scripta, et Pentateuchus, raro reliqui Veteris Testamenti libri illis explicabantur, ut saltem intelligere possent, quid in sacro codice contineretur. Iisdem studiis etiam cunctae baronum filiae imbuebantur, eo saltem fine, ut vernacula eo melius legere et scribere possent. Qui grammaticae slavonicae operam daret, vix aliquis reperiebatur, praecipue cum eius linguae grammatica a MaximoCretensi, quem hodie Rutheni canonicum sanctum habent, elaborata, et semel tantum Moscvae edita, rarissime inveniretur, at superiori saeculo, postquam sub Basilii Albani principatu oecumenico throno reddita fuerit Moldavia, expergefieri, et e profundis, quibus obsita [erat] barbariei tenebris, ad lucem aliquantulum perduci coepit. Huius enim principis cura primo Iassiis schola Graeca condita, iussumque fuit, ut in omnibus lavris maioribus monachi graeci reciperentur, qui nobilium filios graecis litteris et scientia instruerent; ab eodem institutum fuit, ut in templo cathedrali in honorem patriarchalis ecclesiae alter chorus graecis psaltis constaret, totaque liturgiae dimidia graeco, dimidia slavonico sermone recitaretur, quod et hodie observatur.

Idem princeps etiam typographiam graecam et moldavam paravit, librosque ecclesiasticos et politicas leges imprimi iussit, qua re factum, ut primo evangelia et apostolici textus, mox et universa liturgia vernaculo sermone recitarentur.

Aliquot deceniis post, pium id Basilii institutum imitaus est Valachiae princeps Serbanus Cantacuzenus, et in sua provincia scholas typographiasque graecas et vernaculas condidit. Tandem sub finem elapsi saeculi aliqui Moldavorum etiam in latinam linguam et scientias incumbere coeperunt. Laudando exemple reliquis praeivit Miron quidam logotheta, accuratissimus Moldavorum historicus, qui filios suos in Poloniam misit, ibique eos latino sermone et liberalibus scientiis imbui curavit. De hinc et Duca, princeps Moldaviae, iuvenem doctissimum Iohannem Papam (qui postea Moscvae Comneni nomen assumpsit, tandemque metropolitanam Dristae sedem adeptus est) et Cygalam hieromonachum, ad filios suos erudiendos ad se in Moldaviam accersivit, post et parens noster Constantinus Cantemirius eruditissimum hieromonachum Ieremiam Cacavelam cretensem in Moldaviam vocavit, eiusque curae et doctrinae suos et aliorum baronum filios commisit: ex quo tempore plures Moldavorum graecis, italis et latinis literis operam navare inceperunt.


Tabula Geographica Moldauia

Arguments against[edit]

Irrelevant, spam looking like argumentation, very strange user as well, looking at his editing history on[9]--Moldopodotalk 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm active on the Romanian Wikipedia. (Poţi să vorbeşti îm limba română cu mine) Minisarm 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man, you can't change the fact of de jure existance of two languages. How the fact that two juridical languages are similar, we propose to "merge" it in one. (Vezi ca, dupa lege, noi vorbim in Moldoveneasca aici, si e normal ca suntem atinsi ca wiki nu e, ci, caci ambele limbi exista) --Serhio 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't change the fact that both of these are de facto the same language. I speak Romanian a bit, and I understand what you've written, even if you missed intentionally all diacritics. According to the law, you might speak Moldovan, Bassarabian, Transnistrian, Chişinăuish or how you'd like to call it, but changing the name does not bring the new language to existence. Remigiu 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing is change dde jure. Moldavian dates back to the beginning of the 15th century. You say Bassarabian, Transnistrian, Chişinăuish, - I ask you: are these internationally recognised langauges as Moldavian and Romanian?--Moldopodotalk 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the name of all that is good and decent, please stop this nonsense! Are you seriously going to assert there was such a thing as a Moldavian language in the 15th century?! Is there a Constitution to support this? Is there any shred of unbiased and unambiguous source supporting this? If you really feel much for them, stick to ISO codes and Communist Constitutions, you have support enough in those, but don't pretend there's any real Moldovan language back in the 15th century that nobody (except yourself) knows of. --Gutza 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every once in a while some (euphemistically speaking) uneducated people stir the waters to raise the mud. A short intro for those of you unaware of the political facts about Moldova. Not discussing the level of information reaching its population (which is low), the freedom in the society (which is low), the civic awareness, the democracy promoted by the ruling Communist Party in Moldova (the same Soviet guys from 'before') - if you wanna check, google for: democracy, Moldova, human rights, EU etc. - not discussing all of that, the so called 'Moldovan language' is a political expression used firstly by Josef Stalin as a mean to give a distinct ethnic identity for the people living in the territories between rivers Prut and Dniester (forming the eastern part of the historical region Moldova), a territory occupied by the Soviet Union during WW2. During the Cold War the official policy of both Soviet Union and Romania (a member of the Communist block) was to annihilate, under the threat of prison, anything that could put together Romania and the annexed territories, from lying in history books (directly or by not mentioning) to banning songs. When SU collapsed, the Soviet Moldova gained independence. But 50 years of Communism (lack of information, the power in few hands - the communist elite) made the same guys to gain the power using a populist discourse. What a news: they've started using the same propaganda as Stalin did 50 years before. Why? Because they love power. Because it's nice to play between Russia and Romania. Because being in the Ru sphere of influence means you make the rules there, but approaching Ro or EU means you can lose power in some democratic elections. This is very useful, because when you can't provide food for you people (and yes, there is hunger in Moldova), you have to unify the people under your rule inventing a common enemy - in this case, Romania. 'They' want to 'conquer' Moldova, to change the 'ethnicity', to destroy the 'Moldovan ethnos'. And it worked, because for 50 years Romanian was written in Cyrillic (another of Stalin's inventions). The madness went so far, that the 'democratic' independent Moldova even invented a 'Moldovan-Romanian dictionary'. A piece of crap, translating Romanian words into other Romanian words (used particularly in Moldova, both the historical region and the country).
    You don't have to believe me. Just see the collection of quotes and links I've gathered for another stupid discussion on the same subject: [10]
    To the one starting it again: Wiki is free software. Spend 50 euros on some web hosting and start yourself whatever you want. There is room for everyone onto this world, but don't pretend propaganda is scientific fact. Adriatikus 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrelevant unsourced POV rhetorics. Take English Wikipedia, we have an article History of Romanian language[11] with basic references as hypothetical, believed to be, and compare it to the article History of the Moldavian language[12], with exact references, which date back as far as to 14-15th century (I did not hear of Stalin at that time). The term Moldavian language has therefore nothing to do with Russian (well there are about 20% of Slavic vocabulary) or Romanian languages, as at least for the latter it clearly preceeds it (Romanian language). The term "Romanian language" appeared later, and was established once Romania was created in 1878 (nationalistic movements in Western Europe, freemasons exporting it to Eastern Europe, Kogalniceanu, etc.). Moldavian state, just as well as Moldavian nation and Moldavian language are officially recognised at international level, including UN and EU for example, OSCE and others. Moreover, Moldova, by the decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova is going to celebrate 650th Anniversary of foundation of the Moldavian state in 2009 as the successor of the Moldavian Principality, which never spoke a language called RomanianDecree of the President of the RM. The above cited dictionary is not a piece of crap (what a strong argument again!), but shows how different is the spoken village dialect of Moldavian in Moldova. Yes, the title says: Romanian-Moldavian, but bearing in mind that the official written Moldavian is the same as official written Romanian, one can easily uderstand the point of this dictionary - to show the local dialectal colors.--Moldopodotalk 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Good rethorics is starting with conclusions. Aha. To show you have no agenda. Good to remember.
  2. The length of an article in WP doesn't show at all it's on a controversial, or fashionable topic. Aha, so en:Madonna (entertainer) (88,883 B) is almost twice as important as en:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (49,089 B) or en:Socrates (47,553 B). I haven't got the guts to compare it with en:Albert Einstein... But let's face the truth, only 84,969 Bytes. So the girl like a virgin mathematically is very important.
  3. When you want to be impartial, you fail to mention that the same early sources say that Moldovans, Wallachians and Transylvanians share the same language, customs and origins. You also fail to mention the language was interchangeably named Romanian in Moldovan sources. No, you only mention what is important for your cause. Very subtle.
  4. When you want to show respect for your opponents, then, politely, say their origin is linked to a conspiracy-like organization. Just for the record. Of course all European national movements of the 19th century were backed-up by Masonry, but it's good to be remembered Romania's is spooky.
  5. It's obvious UN, EU, OSCE, when recognize a country, they trust it fully. They send observers and talk only to states they don't recognize. That's how you really do foreign policy: you first settle all issues with a country, then you recognize it. Logical and very insightful - me, stupid, I have thought you recognize an entity in order to establish diplomatic relations, themselves in order to have official talks. Actually, it seems the order is the other way.
  6. How could I forget? You still have to check the legislation in Moldova on issues of language and history. Like during the old good Soviet times. No! Don't comment! I know: they are rulers because they know best. That's how you have a scientific review: check if it's allowed by law.
  7. I'm very sorry. I cannot recognize quality. The world famous (sic!) Vasile Stati in an obvious way doesn't write a dictionary of two languages, as stupid me can read on the cover. No! It's a dialectal dictionary. As you can say, I can easily understand the meaning of a language dictionary: to be about dialects. Aha.
Moldopodo, thank you, for all of us, for enlighting us, poor mortals, with deep insights of rethorics, impartiality, respect, foreign policy, scientific review. Thank you, again! I am ashamed of ignorance on the behalf of all. You've let us literally open-mouthed. Cheers! Adriatikus 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A fellow wikipedian (I won't mention her ethnicity or origin country, but if you guess the worse you are right) pointed me an article which, judging by its length and no of sources, is more important for humankind than the en:History of the Romanian language. Everyone interested in important stuff, please read en:Exploding whale. PS: Thank you, unnamed stranger. Adriatikus 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are a lot other more influential countries that speak the same language, but don't argue on this. Like:
    English is spoken in: USA, England, Ireland, Australia, and some other 49 countries.
    German is spoken in: Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and a province from Italy.

    Still, none of these countries has nothing to object with the respective Wikipedias being called English and German. This thing with Moldavian-Romanian Wikipedia is just snobbery. diego_pmc 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the probelm with other countries is that they call the langauge the same way, which is not the case with two officially and internationally recognised terms for the same language in Moldova and Romania. That's the whole and the biggest difference. Therefore, the situation in, say Austria and Germany is not comparable, as Austrians for example do not call their langauge Austrian. There is no Austrian language that is officially and internatioanlly recognised, contrary to Moldova and Romania case.--Moldopodotalk 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: Not the case with the us, it has a different code and everything. Besides this sn't a very favorable argumat either. The Moldavian language has fewer differences to Romanian, than American English to standard English. If you are so against Romania, then why do you inist merging the two? BTW, in case they do get merged, will you from Moldova spell with Latin or Cyrilic characters? diego_pmc 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is not clear to me, about the US (USA?) in particular. Also please refrain from ethno-racist remarks "If you are so against Romania". The reason the "mo" and "ro" should be joined is that it's the same language having two official names. Moldavian language is spelled with Latin characters, just as the term Romanian which designates the same language--Moldopodotalk 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am strongly opose, like my mates. You can't merge them. At a historical moment, these languages have parted their ways. There is only a fine difference, but, anyway, there is a difference. --Firilacroco 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you then suggest to reopen and copy contents from into it, and then copy the contents from into using the two one and the same langauge, but called differently? Does not seem like a practical solution to me--Moldopodotalk 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, your fellow Romnian friends seem to be lost in their argumentation, and as usually, in a rather gypsy disorganised way, they already do not know what they are voting for or against. therefore, the voting is already sabotaged, with the help of User:Biruitorul and his announcement indicating how to vote on
The Moldovan prince Laţcu (ca. 1365-1373), son of the very first ruler of Moldova, was recognized as duke of Moldova by the Holy See, and the recognition letters called him duke of Moldavia or Vlach nation: dux Moldavie partium seu nationis Wlachie. The Polish chronicler, Jan Długosz, remarked as early as 1476 that Moldavians and Wallachians "share a language and customs"[7] [8] [9] References to a "Moldavian language" can be found in works as early as Grigore Ureche's The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia (1640s). Firs texts in Moldavian appear in the 15 — 16 centuries as translations of the Slavic religious books.[10] The first alphabet used is Cyrillic (until 19 century), later - Russian Cyrillic alphabet. Literary language began to shape in 16-17 centuries, but was finally shaped in the second half of the 19 century. Latin alphabet used again since 1991.--Moldopodotalk 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU MEAN BY "GYPSY DISORGANIZED WAY"? Adriatikus 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added some of the sources that you've quoted in the text above (the sources on Latcu, Dlugozs, and Ureche). Actually, I think that it was Cantemir who made it clear that Moldavians called their language "rumâneste", not Moldavian. There is something that was, and still is, called "moldovâneste" but that designates the dialect (or as some would rather call it, a variety) of the Romanian language. --Anittas 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Cantemir did not think so, nor did he write so.--Moldopodotalk 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • please allow me:

Linguapax Institute - a non-governmental organisation located in Barcelona that was created in 2001 to give continuity to a series of meetings organized by UNESCO:

"In order to better understand the roots and causes of the specific socio-linguistic situation in the Republic of Moldova, we need to revisit the history of the problem. The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic that was created in 1940 after annexation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union, became a laboratory for a nationalities policy focused on Russification (Neukirch, 1996). The main aim was to deny that Moldovans and Romanians had been one people, separated because of territorial claims by the Soviet Union. A first step was to reform the Romanian script in Moldavia: the Romanian language that was written in Latin characters, after 1941 in the "Soviet part" of Moldavia was imposed to switch to the Cyrillic alphabet. A cohort of linguists worked to prove that the "Moldavian" language was independent of Romanian. One thesis said that Moldavian was an independent Eastern Roman Language (Sergievski), another one (Ceban) proclaimed that, because of intense contacts between Moldavians on the one hand and Russians and Ukrainians on the other, the formerly Roman language was being transformed into a Slavic one." [13]

Library of the US Congress Country Study # Language, Religion and Culture > Language [14]:

"Stalin justified the creation of the Moldavian SSR by claiming that a distinct "Moldavian" language was an indicator that "Moldavians" were a separate nationality from the Romanians in Romania. In order to give greater credence to this claim, in 1940 Stalin imposed the Cyrillic alphabet on "Moldavian" to make it look more like Russian and less like Romanian; archaic Romanian words of Slavic origin were imposed on "Moldavian"; Russian loanwords and phrases were added to "Moldavian"; and a new theory was advanced that "Moldavian" was at least partially Slavic in origin. (Romanian is a Romance language descended from Latin.) In 1949 Moldavian citizens were publicly reprimanded in a journal for daring to express themselves in literary Romanian. The Soviet government continued this type of behavior for decades.
Proper names in Moldova were subjected to Russianization as well. Russian endings were added to purely Romanian names, and individuals were referred to in the Russian manner by using a patronymic (based on one's father's first name) as a middle name."


"Romanian is the official language of Romania and claims a total of 25 million speakers (Grimes 1992). Approximately 20 million live in Romania (90% of the population); 3 million in Moldovia (Moldovian Romanian) ..." (note also that there is no entry for Moldovan). [15]

Encyclopedia Britannica (On-line Version):

"The majority of the people of Moldova are ethnic Romanians, and the native language of Moldova is Romanian." (cf. [16])

NY University School of Law - East European Constitutional Review:

"MCP [Moldovan Communist Party] mounted a sustained campaign in favor of Russian as an official language and against the identification of Moldovan and Romanian as the same language. The differences between the latter two are minimal and are mainly those of vocabulary. The theory of "Moldovenism," which argues that the languages are distinct, seeks to emphasize Moldova's separateness from Romania." [17]

James Madison University, College of Political Science - The Sovietization of Moldova:

"It was necessary for the Russian government to move Romanians out of the Moldavian Republic so that Russians could settle in their place. In order for the Moldavian Republic to be a separate state, Russia wanted all Moldova's ties with Romania to be severed. Consequently, plans to obliterate the Romanian past were immediately put into action. In Kishinev, the capital of Moldova, the Romanian Orthodox Cathedral that had been damaged in WWII was turned into the Central Exhibition Hall for Moldova."
"Additionally, the Romanian language that is spoken in Moldova was also Russified by changing the Latin alphabet to the Cyrillic alphabet. At this time, the language was renamed Moldavian. The Romanian language was removed from the schools and from the republican administration. Even up until 1989, many people who supposedly spoke Moldavian still had not mastered it. Nonetheless, the importance of Russian culture was emphasized throughout Moldova and Moldova's Romanian past was ignored. The complete negation of Romanian culture shows the fear that the Soviets had of not consolidating power in this republic due to the strength of ethnic Romanian identity felt by most of Moldova's inhabitants." [18]

Culture and the Politics of Identity in Modern Romania - an international conference on Modern Romanian intellectual and cultural history -- page at University of Pittsburgh:

"Questions about the meaning of Moldovan identity -- especially the vexed issue of the existence of a distinct Moldovan language -- have haunted policymakers for much of this century. The Moldovan case, moreover,has been seen by most scholars as a vast exercise in Stalinist "denationalization" designed to construct an "artificial" Moldovan identity and to throw the Moldovans into a state of collective amnesia about their "true" Romanian-ness. Much of the existing Western and now, post-Soviet literature on Moldova has seen the period of the MASSR (Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) -- with its heated debates over the relationship between the Moldovan and Romanian languages, its frequent alphabet changes, and its strange neologisms based on indigenous roots or Slavic calques -- as an amusing, though sinister, episode in Moldovan and Romanian history." [19]

Indiana University - Center for the Study of Global Change:

"Moldovan, virtually the same language as Romanian, is the republic’s official language and is practiced by approximately 75 percent of the population." [20] - data for Moldova [21]:

"National or official language: Romanian (Moldovan)."
"Living languages: Romanian, Romani, Gagauz, Bulgarian" (Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.)

Donald L. Dyer, AM'82, PhD'90, The Romanian Dialect of Moldova: A Study in Language and Politics (Edwin Mellen Press):

review: "Dyer examines the history of Soviet language policy in Moldova, where Soviet linguists attempted to create an independent literary language called "Moldavian." He focuses on the dialectal features of Moldovan Romanian and the relationship between the Romanian of Moldova and other regional languages." [22] Elizabeth Anderson, PhD Candidate in International Education, Steinhardt School of Education, New York University (New York, New York) - Disillusionment with Democracy: Notes from the Field in Moldova:

"Explaining who is a Moldovan is not a simple task. It may be assumed that Moldovans essentially are Romanians because the countries are historically linked; legend has it that a Romanian prince founded the region of Moldova in the early fourteenth century. Also, the countries share a border, similar cultural traditions, and a common language. However, Moldova, unlike Romania, has not traditionally been an independent state."
"Romanian Studies professor Charles King writes “Moldova [remains], even a decade after independence, the only country in Eastern Europe in which major disputes existed among political and cultural elites over the fundamentals of national identity.” King further argues that national Moldovan identity is not a concept that arose naturally among the region’s inhabitants but it was an artificial idea that was imposed by the Soviet Union. King explains that prior to the 1920s, scholars considered the inhabitants of Moldova to be nothing “more than an eastern offshoot of the Romanians” because their spoken dialect shared its origins with that Romanian. He explains that a distinct Moldovan identity emerged in 1924 when the Soviet Union created The Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (MASSR). [...] Soviet officials created this new nationality by declaring that Moldovans had a distinct heritage and culture from their neighbors in Romania proper."
"Building on the premise that Moldovans were distinctly different from their Romanian cousins, the Soviets took measures to separate the regions. For example, Soviet linguists created the Moldovan language by converting their current Romanian dialect (essentially Romanian with a Slavic influence) from the Latin alphabet to the Cyrillic. The Soviets did this intentionally to control the region and prevent its citizens from fraternizing with their Romanian neighbors." [23]

BBC - Languages across Europe:

"Moldovan corresponds to the Romanian language spoken in what was the Moldovan Socialist Republic."
"Moldovan was created as a definition, to make a distinction between Romanian and Moldovan during Russian occupation." [24]

Adriatikus 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adriatikus, thank you for the extensive contribution. Unfortunately I think you've missed the point. All your references basicly confirm the same thing I am saying: Moldavian and Romanian is the same language named differently in Moldavia and Romania. I am not pronouncing on the history as it is a matter of speculation, as your sources say themsemlves.--Moldopodotalk 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't see Adriatikus claim otherwise. In fact, he does claim they could well be interpreted as one language. Migdejong 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, two officially and internationally recognised terms: Moldavian[25], [26], [27] and Romanian designate the one and same language.--Moldopodotalk 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's the most stupid thing to merge there two languages. The mo:wp it's open (I can see it... and you can see it two). It's in Russian Unicode (chirilice în română). If you would like to write in Latin Unicode, use wp:ro. I'll give you an eg.: w:ro:User:Gikü. He's from Chișinău - Moldova. It's a very active user from Wp:ro.--Firilacroco 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it was a conversation about the moldavian language and the lingvists from Wp:Ro decided that there is no Moldavian Language. Sorry... --Firilacroco 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's a strong argument "It's the most stupid thing"--Moldopodotalk 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have a Moldovan friend, and he told me about Moldova. He says "We don't exist, Moldova doesn't exist, we are just a part of Romania stolen from Soviet Union. Romanians and Moldovans are the same, our language is Romanian. We even are voting to become part of Romania again." At first, I asked him "Do you speak Moldovan", and he got angry and said "No, its Romanian!". But then again, I don't see why Bosnian and Croatian have two seperate wikis since they seem like the same language just dialects, so maybe a reopening of should commence, but not a merge of the two. --Girdi 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please, we are no at a gypsy bazaar--Moldopodotalk 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw, I think someone is just angry people aren't taking his side. :) But the point is, Moldovan is one of those silly inventions from the USSR and now it is a dialecet of Romanian. It is like, let's make a wikipedia then called "American Wikipedia" or "Canadian Wikipedia" so we can write things like "color" instead of "colour", although I think American English and British English have much more differences in written form than Romanian and Moldovan. So as for me, I don't speak English, I speak Australian, why isn't there an Australian wikipedia? :D haha --Girdi 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man, American, Canadian etc. languages does not exist but Moldavian. See the sources above. --Serhio 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Moldavian language is a dialect of Romainian, like American English, but the Moldavian governement calls the dialect "Moldavian". M.M.S. 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrelevant, unsourced and false above all. Moldavian is an official language of the Republic of Moldova, as recognised by international organisations, Moldavian language date sback to 15th century.--Moldopodotalk 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Moldovan is even less than a dialect of Romanian, it's a variety (see Varieties of the Romanian language). The language itself is indeed recognized internationally, but only on political grounds (international organisations can't deny a sovereign state's constitutional provisions). Apart from empty politics, experts unanimously agree the language is actually Romanian called by a different name (see the extensive data presented by Adriatikus above; also see Moldovan language). All of the above could conceivably still not be justification enough to prevent a politically correct name for the Romanian Wikipedia. But even within the Republic of Moldova proper, the mainstream intellectuals also agree they're speaking Romanian: the Institute of Philology of the Moldovan Academy is regulating and awarding doctorates for the Romanian language, not Moldovan; the Moldovan Education Ministry's curricula includes the study of the Romanian language, not Moldovan. Proposals such as this one are always trying to play the card of Romanian revisionists/colonialists/imperialists trying to rob poor Moldovans of their national identity. That is not the case -- no Romanian will imply in any way that Moldovans are speaking the language of the Romanian country. Everybody agrees that a single language has evolved naturally in this region -- it's not "ours" versus "theirs". The very territory of the Republic of Moldova is roughly half of the historical Principality of Moldavia -- the other half is now part of Romania. That Principality (and not the current republic), along with the other historical regions of Romania have equal claim over the historical development of the Romanian language. Now half of that Principality has become a sovereign state and "the people in charge" have declared they speak a different language -- well, good for them, they can declare whatever they may feel like, and UN, EU and all international organisms will duly note that in official documents; and why not, they'll even get an ISO code if they apply for it. But that doesn't make any difference in the core of the matter, which is that there is actually only one language being used in this region, no matter by which name you choose to call it -- and that there's actually neither bitterness nor revisionism involved in making that claim. Now, given all the above, there's a Catch-22 that Mr. Moldopodo is clumsily trying to avoid. You have to decide on what grounds you make the judgment of whether renaming the Romanian Wikipedia is appropriate or not: do you base your judgment on the historical Principality's claim to the Romanian language, or on the current Republic's official language name? As shown above, the Principality does have a completely legitimate claim at being part of the development of this language -- but they were quite happy to agree they spoke the same language with their immediate neighbors to the West (i.e. Romanian) -- in old writings they merrily interchange "Romanian language" with "Moldovan language" without blinking. Also, if that is the basis for making a decision then you need to acknowledge all of the other historical varieties which have equal claims to the Romanian language (again, see Varieties of the Romanian language) -- you'd end up with quite a silly name for the project, see my other thread below, in section #Other discussion. On the other hand, if you want to base your judgment on the current, recent Republic's official language name then you have to acknowledge it's just an empty label, and that the very citizens of said Republic deny the legitimacy of that label. --Gutza 12:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we are, the typical Romanian input already gives its results. The very author of sabotaging the voting got caught in his own sabotage. Now you are lost and start refering to a variety... What will be next? --Moldopodotalk 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me address the en:letter and spirit of the law. Since there are no formal rules regarding merging wikis, the law in this case is represented by WM:LPP. In the lead we read there are 4 "basic requirements" for a wiki. Among them, at no 3 we read the letter of the law "the language must be sufficiently unique" (mark-1). The next paragraph, in italics, is the explanation of the above, or the spirit of the law, or the rationale. We read The subcommittee does not consider political differences. Why, one may ask. Because Wikimedia's goal is to give free access to information rather than information from the viewpoint of individual political communities (mark-2). Now, we know the so called Moldovan language is identical with Romanian, a fact acknowledged by its supporters (the information is in So, the letter of the law, mark-1, is not fulfilled. One may say that is about renaming the, or merging and to But, reading the quotes from prestigious 3rd party sources I've provided above, we learn that Moldovan language exists in the viewpoint of some political entities (Soviet and post-Soviet Communists). More, both Romanian and "Moldovan", not like English, but like e.g. French, are regulated, in the sense that there are bodies regulating the laws of the language, both in Romania and Moldova. These organisms are the Academies of the two countries. But the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, the regulating body of the official language in Moldova, calls the language "Romanian", and it has adopted the same orthographic rules adopted by the Romanian Academy: ]. Therefore the proposal fails to fullfill the spirit of the law, too. In conclusion, the proposal fails to fullfill a basic requirement, both in letter and in spirit. Q.E.D. --- Adriatikus 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately neither your reading of the en:letter and spirit of the law, nor of the law itself WM:LPP prove your good faith reading, as you perfectly know from the mere fact of participation in this discussion what this suggestion is about: renaming into In fact the WM:LPP does not apply here in the first hand, simply because both and already exist. Nobody is proposing here a new language, let's make it clear. Secondly, and even if the discussion here was about a proposal of a new language, where you sustain that such a proposal would not resist the second test, bringing the whole history of existence of Moldavian language to "political motivation" - highly POV and sourced by the same speculative sources that attest at the same time the existence of Moldavain language, you clearly show bad faith here. Following you reasoning, why don't you suggest then to simply change the alphabet (into Lartin) of the, so that we could copy-paste a good number of articles from and to reciprocally?--Moldopodotalk 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have deleted the section name, "The Wikipedia rules" (actually, it is Wikimedia). My post is for the against arguments section. While I intend to provide arguments, rather than using words like "you" and so on, this time I must write: Stop editing other users posts! You did it before on this page with one of my posts, and I was kind enough to say nothing. Please stop editing me! Adriatikus 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, if anyone has found flaws, please write to Linguapax Institute, Library of Congress, NY University School of Law, James Madison University, Encyclopedia Britannica, Indiana University, James Madison University, Harvard or BBC, or all of them, complaining on how POV and speculative they are. Do not forget to post here their answers. If you are right, I can only imagine the tabloids (because I, presonally, am too stupid to read and understand scientific literature): "BBC fires incompetent journalists because of Wikipedia user X", "Harvard honors user X", "Universities fight for Wikipedia user X", "Britannica is to be user reviewed before publishing", "Library of Congress: less tax money", etc. Adriatikus 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I oppose this proposal for a simple reason. As shown in the copious quotations provided by Adriatkius, "Moldovan" (by the way, Moldovan, not Moldavian) is the same as Romanian. We don't have, we have We don't have, we have We don't have, we have The internationally recognised name of the language is Romanian, period. Yes, the government of the Republic of Moldova calls it "Moldovan", but that doesn't make it a new language. Neither does a presidential decree have any bearing on the fact that there is but one Romanian language.

And by the way, Moldopodo's antics here have been disgusting. I believe Romanian users can think for themselves - yes, I invited them here, but it's not as if I influenced their opinion, so kindly drop the matter. (He also canvassed about 15 unrelated projects, I might add, but got little response from that futile effort.) His use of terms like "ethno-racist" and "gypsy" (which, ironically, is itself, one might say, a racist term when used as he did it) is beneath contempt.
Just an editorial comment for uninvolved parties: there is no Moldovan language, ethnicity, culture--it's all Romanian, an intrinsically Romanian land viciously stolen by the USSR. Hidden, of course, beneath a Stalinist cloak of fake Moldovenism, but all Romance-speaking peoples in that country are in fact Romanian, even if most of them deny it, having been conditioned to think that way during Soviet times. Biruitorul 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • freedomhouse:
(...)groups reacted strongly to the ruling Communist Party's efforts to fulfill one of its central electoral promises of 2001: the removal of two textbooks--History of Romanians and Romanian Language and Literature--from the country's public education system. In their place, the government proposed two new texts--History of Moldova and Moldovan Language and Literature.
Those who opposed the move argued that the government was threatening the most precious asset they had left--their ethnic identity. The CDPP took the lead in organizing students, parents, teachers, and other opponents of the new texts in a marathon protest that began on January 9 and ended only on April 29. Some demonstrators established a tent camp on the main street in downtown Chisinau, facing the presidential administration and Parliament buildings, and blocked traffic from April 2 to April 29. Overall, these protest actions were the most notable since the preindependence rallies of the late Soviet period.
In February 2002, a coalition of 30 NGOs called Civil Society Says NO issued a joint statement against the "irresponsible actions and initiatives of the Communist authorities...aimed at the destruction of the democratic mechanisms upon which society is based." The document addressed multiple problems ranging from the protection of basic rights and freedoms to the conduct of Moldova's foreign policy. The most active groups during the year were the Euro-Atlantic Association Club of Graduates from Romanian and Western Universities, the Independent Journalism Center, the Contact Center of Assistance and Information, the Committee for Press Freedom, and Jurists for Human Rights. Together they blamed the Communist Party for using the public media as a Communist propaganda machine, violating political pluralism, neglecting decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that concern Moldova, marginalizing the Romanian language in favor of Russian, and pushing an overall Russification of the country.
In the end, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was forced to intervene to quell the confrontation between the Communist authorities and the protesters. After weeks of scrupulous examination of the political situation in the country, PACE recommended several measures at its session on April 24. First, it called on the government to cease its efforts to lift the immunity of CDPP parliamentary deputies who had organized the protests and to drop any judicial proceedings against them. Second, it advocated strengthening the legal guarantees of parliamentary immunity and improving protections for the parliamentary opposition. Third, it demanded an end to censorship at TeleRadio-Moldova (the state television and radio company), the granting of full access for opposition parties to the media, and the transformation of TeleRadio-Moldova into an independent public corporation. Fourth, PACE called for an extension to the moratorium on Russian-language teaching and a phasing out of policies that give the Russian language official status in the Moldovan state. Fifth, it called for legalizing the Basarabian Metropolitan Church, which is subordinated to the Romanian Orthodox Church in Bucharest and has been denied registration by the government for fear that doing so would encourage stronger ties with Romania. Sixth, it warned of the consequences of any escalation between the central government and authorities in Gagauzia. Finally, PACE suggested organizing a roundtable with the participation of all political forces, both parliamentary and extraparliamentary, with the assistance of the Council of Europe.
PACE's recommendation received varied reactions in Chisinau. The Communist-dominated Parliament and the government saw the intervention of PACE as a defeat and opposed the implementation of all proposals. In contrast, opposition forces and NGOs viewed the actions as a victory for democracy. Moldova is scheduled to take over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in May 2003, and the council should make this leadership post contingent on Chisinau's fulfillment of the PACE recommendations.
[28] -- Adriatikus 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Valencian" is the official name used in the Valencian Community (Spain) to refer to the Catalan language, yet we don't have a A similar case is "Flemish" which is how the Ducth language is commonly designated in Belgium (although not officialy). Only a tiny minority of native speakers reffer to the Romanian language as Moldovan (there is no consensus even in Moldova) and almost no linguists do so. Creating a would simply give undue weight to this trend. Plinul cel tanar 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other discussion[edit]

  • This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Since mo and ro are identical in every respect except the name, I'm sure mo speakers could happily read and edit the existing --Iulianu 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, namely to avoid this kind of unilateral statements "I'm sure mo speakers could happily read and edit the existing" and taking in cosideration the official recognition of both languages, existence of the closed by now, I namely suggest to merge the two Wikipedia projects and call it 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and taking in cosideration the official recognition of both languages - So in what language I will have to write in the mo-ro.wp? 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In one and the same language, for what is recognised it will be Moldavian, for it is recognised it will be Romanian.--Moldopodo 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since mo and ro are identical in every respect except the name, I'm sure ro speakers could happily read and edit the existing  ;) -- 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that how (mo) languages in the Cyrillic script is used only in the Transdnestian region of Moldova, and haven't a recognition, the (mo) language should be merged in the mo-ro wikipedia.
By the way, the old Moldavian chronicles were written in the Cyrillic script. see Carte de învăţătură (Vasile Lupu), 1646 on the referenced site from Romanian library in mentioned "(română)" in order that Romanian users can 'recognize' as being Romanian the Moldovan language in the Cyrillic script.
see also
  • ro:Cârjaliul Cârjaliul de Constantin Negruzzi 1837 (in text the language is called moldovenească - moldavian)--Serhio 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, except that very document merrily interchanges "Moldovan language" with "Romanian language" without the author feeling he owes the reader an explanation. Why do you think that is? --Gutza 08:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't be serious, you're not using using Negruzzi now, this is getting preposterous. --Gutza 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question - do you suggest using Cyrillic script of mo:wiki or the Latin one of current Moldovan? --Illythr 10:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, certainly not. Moldavian written in Cyrillic is not a recognised alive language--Moldopodo 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, what's there to merge? mowiki is in Cyrillic, and its contents, I understand, is mostly transliterated rowiki articles. Or do you mean just the name? --Illythr 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point being is that since the langauge is the same, but the official terms used to call it are different, just adding these terms together leads to one and the same language. As for the present version of the closed in Cyrillic, indeed it is an obsolete version of Moldavian, heavily coloured with poilitics. The Moldavian is written with Latin characters, just as Romanian, grammar, etc. rules are the same, therefore the deletion of the actual and change of the into the is the best solution.--Moldopodotalk 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Gutza is right. Why don't we have a sepparate Wiki for all these dialects? I'll answer: because they are derived from Romanian. --Firilacroco 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Man, derived, or not derived, there is a ISO standard (see above in this page) that standardize and prove the existence of the language. -- 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that dialects, especially recognised ones, really present a different language. Are these dialects recognised as official langauge, ISO code, present in international organisations, Constitution of a country, taught in schools, etc?--Moldopodotalk 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taught in schools, you mean like this? --Gutza 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, like this and like this and like this and like this and I hope you know, that from September 2008, the term Moldavian is mandatory for education sphere--Moldopodotalk 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have two Norwegian Wikis. How do the differences between these compare with Moldovan and Romanian?--Cato 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know about two Norvegian wikis, sorry, it's not part of my competence. May be you want to explain about it some more?--Moldopodotalk 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moldovan is a 50 years old communist political experiment per these arguments: [29]. I am a native speaker of Romanian. Usually I can identify someone from the Republic of Moldova when he speaks by his accent. Still there are moments when if not told, I may confound one with someone from Romania. Talking about the lexicon, the majority is shared with Romanian, although there are some loans from Russian in the last 50 years. Not like English, but like eg. French, Romanian is a regulated language. Its regulatory body is the Romanian Academy. The funny thing is the Moldovan Academy calls it Romanian, too. In fact the only authority (be it scientific or political) naming the language Moldovan is the Moldovan Communist Party (in the laws it has made), following the tradition of Stalin's linguists. Adriatikus 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please obstain from ethno-racist speculation, by negating such obvious terms as Moldavian language, Moldavian nation and Moldavian state, which historically have all enormous precedence over the term Romanian.--Moldopodotalk 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does South Dakota over US. Though I haven't heard of the South Dakota language. Neither of American Language. Names, especially when used with political goals in mind, prove nothing per se. Instead of trolling around, you'd better draw conclusions from the quotes I've put there for you. People more educated than me, and even than you. Oh, while doing your silly wars, don't forget to grow up. Attacking other users with racist allegations instead of judging the core of the problem (once again, you have something quoted above) prove all but maturity. Most of admins aren't aware of the Communist policies in the Eastern Europe, and this fits you. But keywords like 'racist', especially misplaced, not only prove you're talking out of context, but could ring some bells. Adriatikus 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure you haven't heard of South Dakota language, it is not official in any country of the world recognised by the international community. It's normal in this case you see. I think you are lost in looking for imaginary arguments swhitching between South Dakota and Communist policies in Eastern Europe... Review your lesson.--Moldopodotalk 08:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone with more knowledge of Scandinavian languages can undoubtedly tell you more, but as far as I know they are not only quite distinct, but is Bokmål (no:) actually closer to Danish than it is to Nynorsk (nn). - Andre Engels 10:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest, as to acknowledge oltenian and ardelean dialects, which also have precedence over Romanian. No, make it, as to pay proper tribute to Dacian. --Gutza 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P.S. If you really want to get creative, here's a good source of inspiration: Varieties of the Romanian language (which incidentally also explains why this proposal is to be summarily dismissed). --Gutza 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Gutza is right. Why don't we have a separate Wiki for all these dialects? I'll answer: because they are derived from Romanian. --Firilacroco 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess because none of them may be referred to as official language of a country.--Moldopodotalk 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem a bit mixed up. The Moldovan dialect for which you assess "enormous precedence" has never been an official language of any country. So if you want to talk about the dialect proper, then you have to acknowledge it's very much on par with all the others. If you want to talk about the official language of the Moldovan Republic then there's no precedence to speak of. Make up your mind and come up with a coherent argument, right now you're mixing apples and pigs in order to prove that giraffes are green. --Gutza 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typical argumentation from a Romanian user - plain rhetorics to fill in the blank space on the talk page and no source. What was the language spoken in the Moldavian Principality?--Moldopodotalk 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Romanian--Firilacroco 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BIG UNSOURCED LIE--Moldopodotalk 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is a lie, it does not need to be sourced. --Anittas 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anittas> :)))))) Somebody, shoot me. --Serhio 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry, but I have really hard time organising a constructive debate with Romanain users like you. Please, bear in mind, when you assert someting on Wikipedia, you need to source it, ok? Your plai words are not a credible source.--Moldopodotalk 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What, the official language of the Principality? No idea, do you have a copy of their Constitution at hand? --Gutza 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still haven't answered. --Gutza 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You see, in a civilised society it is considered a bad manner to answer a question with a question (I guess this is not part of the society you are in)--Moldopodotalk 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked about which characters will be used, because I saw the Moldavian Wikipedia uses Cyrilic's. I still didn't understand yet if WP:mo is closed or not. If it's closed, then it means Moldavians don't have interest in the project, which in turn means there's no need for a change in the name.
The dialect argumeant isn't that valid either, for reasons stated above, plus other languages have a lot more numbered, and a lot more varied dialects (German), and no one complains about this, which, as I said above, I consider snobbery. I have nothing against Moldova, just that I see the Romanian people, and the Moldavian people as being the same. In the past, our (too) praised ancestors (Stefan, Mircea, Mihai, Vlad, etc) all called themselves 'Romanians, even though they came from three different countries, and in the end this being the reason why the Great Romania was formed. We will never be united if people like you (which could be from bother Romania and Moldova) see themselves different from the others. If I were Moldovian, I would call myself a Romanian, like quite a few other Moldovians know. diego_pmc 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is one and the same langauge called with two equally recognised official terms. What gives you an argument to leave it called only with one of the terms? Look, the dialect argument is nothing else as a typical Romanian way of leading the discussion - deviating from the original subject. I've seen it plenty of times on Wikipedia. This is how votings are sabotaged, at the end users don't know what they are voing for or against anymore. It was not part of my argument, so please ask your fellow Romanians. Also, Romanian users, please source your arguments. It's a voting, not a bazaar with gypsies walking around telling stories on what their would be friends think of the subject and gradually deviating the topic to something else.--Moldopodotalk 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Moldovan is not "equally recognized" as Romanian is. Not even in Moldova. Altough the official name for the language is called Moldovan in Moldova, the constitution contradicts that by referring to the name of the language as Romanian. Other institutions also use the name Romanian. The Moldovan Academy names the language as Romanian. If all sides in Moldova would agree to name the language Moldovan, then perhaps its status would be more official. As it stands now, you can't ask others to recognize the language under two names, when those in Moldova can't agree on that. --Anittas 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Readers, please don't be deceived by this blatant lie. This is unfortunately so typical of Romanian users and shows the civility level of contradictional debate they are able to hold - level of a gypsy bazaar where everyone can lie and invent whetever comes in the head without any reference or proof whatsoever. Please, check the Moldavian Constitution and find one word "Romanian", I will provide you with a source[30]. --Moldopodotalk 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm Moldavian, not Gypsy. The statement that I've made can be found on the Moldovan language article, on the English Wiki. I quote: "The Constitution of Moldova (Title I, Article 13) states that the "Moldovan language" is the official language of the country." (Source) --Anittas 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another BIG LIE here. Just read over your post. First you say Moldavian is not recognised in Moldova itself, then you cite the Moldovan Constitution which stipulates excatly the contrary "Moldavian is the offical language of the Republic of Moldova"( art. 6).--Moldopodotalk 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say that Moldavan is not recognized in Moldova. What I said was that "Moldovan is not equally recognized as Romanian is. Not even in Moldova." --Anittas 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't undestand your motivation. Yeah, it's offcially called Moldovian languege, though there bassically isn't any difference. Some guy just felt like he wasn't different enough - in my book (which yes, doesn't matter too much) that's called snobbery. Even so, it's official, but a lot of people, wiser than the politicians that made it official (Moldovian historians and linguists), seems to think the official differenciation between the two is not well motivated enough. If I were you I'd just leave this be the way it is, and just do something useful, like discuss what policies Wikipedia needs to have changed (if you like politics), or better actually do, or help others do, those changes, instead of talking about how it should be named. diego_pmc 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any referrence to a consensus position on the topic inside the two projects. This should be a prerequisite of the discussion here. --Nk 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus?! If it weren't for a user who has noted this page, the community on the Romanian Wikipedia wouldn't have even known about this request. --Gutza 13:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Messages in various projects[edit]

Actually, I don't see like what he's done is something wrong by asking other people to join (he didn't tell them, "vote for me"), just that he is wasteing time with this. diego_pmc 06:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's explain the story here, User:Biruitorul wrote before I contacted other Wikipedias this disrespectful message regarding myself on[31] with the following: Dear colleagues, it's a serious thing! A Moldovenist porposed the change of name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp I ask you to express your opinions as long as there is some time left, and if you do so, look also at another proposal of his".--Moldopodotalk 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this thing goes both ways. So if you're guilty, he is guilty as well, but ths isn't a wrong thing to do,a s long as you don't tell them to vote against or for something. But this is still a waste of time. So please answer me: if mo:wp is closed, then it means not enough Mo's have interest in the project, therefore no reason to change the name. Or do you disagree?diego_pmc 08:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, the thing does not go both ways. This type of reasoning is very typical of Romanian users unfortunately - blatant lie with no justification, just like at a gypsy bazaar. Now, let's make it clear what is canvassing and what is not here. As per Wikipedia definition Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by claming that I am "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--Moldopodotalk 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems you are right. Anyway, please also tell me your opinion about the othe thing I mentioned. diego_pmc 12:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
which thing exactly?--Moldopodotalk 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"if mo:wp is closed, then it means not enough Mo's have interest in the project, therefore no reason to change the name" diego_pmc 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know why is it closed in the first hand. Secondly, uses an obsolete alphabet of Moldavian langauge, which was used in the very beginning 14-15th century and during Soviet times.--Moldopodotalk 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dunno either, but projects usually get closed due to inactivity, or bad activity (as in continuous vandalism). And it was not Meta that imposed the Moldavian Wikipedia to use the Cyrillic alphabet, the creator(s) chose it. diego_pmc 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User I.P. Check[edit]

Dear administrator who will be taking final decision here, please do make a general check of all users particiating for double/triple/quadruple accounts, before taking the final decision. Unfortunately, on subjects related to propaganda of Greater Romania, a user called Bonny on Wikipedia and his numerous ficticious accounts - is a norm for any voting and important editing issue.--Moldopodotalk 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I'm sure that they won't find anythong suspicious :). You can verify. We're all from Wp:Ro and we have the same usernames ;) --Firilacroco 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you have nothing to be afraid of. Funny, Romanian Bonny's clones infesting Wikipeida are also always sure before they get banned. By the way, Bonny (Bonaparte) is not banned on Strange, don't you find?--Moldopodotalk 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That kind of highlights what I said about the underrepresentations of Moldovans on ro.wp: if there were many sensible Moldovans, Bonaparte would probably be banned. I know I've had a fair number of things said about my own character, but I've always found it astonishing that so many different Romanians made themselves into apologists for his nasty ad hominem attacks, calling into question my credibility over things such as my sexual orientation or my age. A couple of users stood up against it (for example, Ronline), but most were content to look the other way because he was a fellow Romanian. Nationalist apologetics need to stop for a Wikipedia to function correctly and neutrally. --Node ue 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to request a check you must have concrete reasons. --Firilacroco 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Node_ue's position[edit]

Hello again colleagues,

I'm sure that this brings back memories from some of you of the last round of debate regarding mo.wp... perhaps you even wondered if this Moldopodo character wasn't the same person as me, or perhaps related? I'm sure more than one person wondered how long it would be until I showed up. Well, here I am.

Let me state for the record my position on this: I really don't have one. The idea seems rather foolish, but at the same time, I agree with the sentiment. While it seems wrong to have a domain with two separate language codes, it seems only fair to give recognition to the fact that Moldovan, written in the Latin alphabet and called "Moldoveneasca", is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. Spare me the arguments about which political party did what, bottom line, it is enshrined in legislation. (If legislation is passed by the US Republican Party declaring "American" the official language in the US, and somebody makes note of this fact, merely saying "but it was the Republicans, so it is meaningless!" is an invalid argument. "Official" is "official").

I certainly don't agree with the idea that mo.wp should be deleted, and neither does the Language Committee, if you followed that discussion. The conclusion there (and don't accuse me of lying, you are welcome to ask Jesse or Gerard to back me up here because this is the truth) was that Moldovan Cyrillic does have native users today, but that mo.wp should be closed until a native Pridnestrovian Moldavian user of the Moldovan Cyrillic shows an interest in reopening it. Although I don't agree completely, I think that as far as that matter goes, the status quo is the best for right now.

When it comes down to it, everybody here is arguing over something that is largely symbolic. I remember ages ago arguing that if it truly hopes to convince people that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language, the rowiki community should use dual names on the main page - by saying "Welcome to the Wikipedia in Romanian/Moldovan!", or even "Welcome to the Wikipedia in our language!" instead of using the word "Romania" so much.

However, I think that even if there were agreement on this topic, there is a good chance that the Language Committee would not agree to such a malformed code as ro-mo because it is without precedent and not enshrined in their Policy.

While the core of this argument seems useless, I think it would make sense to approach a better integration of Moldovenists and Moldovans into ro.wp, rather than continuing the currently prevailing "Us against Them" mentality - remember that we are all human beings, rather than "dirty communist separators" and "chauvinistic Romanian expansionists", the same sun rises on us every morning. --Node ue 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, your input seems an interesting one already from the perspective of a neutral third party user (although I haven't checked your user page yet), even though it is not clear to me what do you suggest exactly? One part of your message I strongly reject is labelling "Moldovenists" users who voted for the new code. "chauvinistic Romanian expansionists" may be very well placed, since certain Romanian users simply deny the existence of anything Moldavian: language, nation, state--Moldopodotalk 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had my fair share of fights with Node (and "ages ago" does seem appropriate), so I expected to read a nauseating message when I saw the author. Not so -- I'm quite happy to see we're finally reaching common ground.
I'll start with the bitter part: get used to it, the Moldovan language is a lost cause, there really, truly is no such thing as a Moldovan language, for reasons we've exhausted several times over. (And no, please don't come back with "a dialect with an army", Republicans and all that -- I'm familiar with the reasoning, but the fact of the matter is that neither Romanians nor Moldovans accept it).
Now, the cool part: I've said it many, many times before: this is not an "us" vs. "them" thing. I've said it above on this very page, I've said it when I was arguing with you years ago: we consider our "Moldovan"-speaking neighbors to be "us", we don't consider them to be "them". And even more important, they themselves consider themselves to be speaking Romanian, unless coerced (I'm talking about reliable sources, like the Academy, the Institute of Philology, or the Ministry of Education).
Need proof? Consider the following:
  • We've had a huge internal fight within caused by the decision to accept both the spelling accepted in Romania and the one accepted in RM. That fight ended up with an irreconcilable difference of opinion between two groups of users; after that rupture the community became divided and the group which supported Romanian-only spelling has ended up leaving the project a few months ago -- and I personally still get blamed for not accepting to make compromises (a large part of the community doesn't remember how things started -- this is how they started, and resentfulness has perpetuated).
  • Like most local Wikipedias, we have logo variations for special celebrations. And we celebrate two National Days -- one for Romania and one for RM.
  • We have one very active contributor residing from Chişinău. He's constantly changing signatures and motto's on his user page praising his home town (e.g. "Chişinău, the greenest city in Europe") -- nobody has ever raised an eyebrow either to his origins or to his motto's.
So you see, this really is not about Romanians vs. Moldovans, it's Romanians and Moldovans against an external agenda. If all you're advocating for is welcoming Moldovans on, consider it done -- not only it's not an issue, but we'd appreciate ideas on how to do that. --Gutza 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, someone should apply a well deserved sanction for such expressions or simply not take serioulsy User Guta's personal view: get used to it, the Moldovan language is a lost cause, there really, truly is no such thing as a Moldovan language, as it clearly expresses an irredentist and ethno-racist POV. User Guta repeatedly tries to bring the existence of Moldavian language to 1991 (date of independence of the Republic of Moldova from the USSR) or at farthest, to the Soviet period of Moldavian history. Not only Moldavian language exists since 15th century, but it is also official language of the Republic of Moldova today, a country which will celebrate 650 of the foundation of Moldavian State (with Moldavian language) in 2009. (Celebration is fixed by the Presidential Decree).--Moldopodotalk 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Republic of Moldova is not the successor state of the Principality of Moldavia. That claim is reserved by Romania since the Principality of Moldavia that did survive as a political entity, chose to unite with Wallachia and form Romania. Moldova can make such claims solely on cultural backgrounds. As for Moldavian existing as a language since the 15th century, under that name, you are more than welcome to include the source that backs up your statement. --Anittas 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's what you personally think, you may keep it to yourself. Your phrase above does not have any encyclopedia-related value. However, the Decree of the President of Moldova has a very well recognised encyclopedia value (official recognised institution), just as well as major encyclopedias which start their part on History of Moldova namely with this period, making also Moldova 650 years old in 2009. As for language sources, please see above, starting from the beginning of this page, I have provided them in today's edits--Moldopodotalk 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly for these reasons (spelling dispute and whoever vs. whoever / all together speculation), the should be renamed into 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I disagree with the name change, I fully agree that WP:ro is "too" Romanian. Node ue's point is a very good one, that rather than changing the name, that would probably cause more bad than good things (complaints from users, which would result in more users leaving, etc), we should rather make an effort to not be so Romanian centered. The main page of WP:ro is fine, IMO, it doesn't make Romania seem like it's more important than Moldova - its structure I mean. The fact that most news are either from the world, or Romania, sorry, but that's because not enough Mo's contribute to the Romanian Wikinews. Then there's the spelling issue, which was solved similarly as in WP:en, which if you ask me was the best way to do it (and the only politically correct one).

The only thing section that is still Romanian centered is the actual content of not-so-good articles, but that can only be fixed if more Mo's become interrested in the project. diego_pmc 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the problem why not so many Moldavian users are using is precisely that it is ro'. If Moldavian had not been an official language in Moldova, not a language officially recognised by inetrnational organisations from UN, to OSCE and EU, then yes, you are right, Moldavians would have only had one chance - to integrate the "ro" wikipedia. However, the case shows that Moldavian is an old (obviously older than Romanian) official and well recognised language with literary form identical to Romanian. Why would the wikipedia using Latin alphabet and the same language as Moldavian be only called then?-- 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to worry, Moldovans learn about their language from other sources than ISO codes and formal UN documents and they know fully well how things actually work. And please don't tell me Moldovans would suddenly rush to our project upon adding a couple of letters to some DNS record. --Gutza 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing that hasn't changed is that people seem to speak for Moldovans a lot. Apparently, all Moldovans "know" they speak Romanian, and they all say they speak Romanian, unless they're under "coercion" from the government. Such unsourced blanket statements are invalid. According to the last census in Moldova, a sizable part of the population prefers the name "Moldovan" for their mother tongue. If you have any contrary sources, please cite them here. --Node ue 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean the census? Certainly, here: "The expert group concluded that the items in the questionnaire dealing with nationality and language proved to be the most sensitive ones, particularly with reference to the recording of responses to these questions as being "Moldovan" or "Romanian", and therefore it concluded that special care would need to be taken in using them. This was because although reports from the field had showed that a large proportion of respondents had spontaneously provided answers to these questions, seven of the ten teams of observers had reported cases where enumerators encouraged respondents to declare that they were Moldovan rather than Romanian." (It goes without saying the same goes for the language, since they mention it explicitly above.) --Gutza 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disgusting attack of Moldopodo[edit]

user:moldopodo, the initiator of this circus called "proposal". having denied all arguments present and past (like from the previous meta interminable discussions regarding the so called "moldovan language"), not only denies 3rd party sources, not only continues to reply with his single most important arguments: irrelevant, POV or speculative, not only wants us to consider a non-scientific notion sustained through law only by a political group (crediting Moldova's communists in front of eg. Harvard, what comparison!), but he is directly attacking in a disgusting chauvinistic way:

"Well, your fellow Romnian friends seem to be lost in their argumentation, and as usually, in a rather gypsy disorganised way, they already do not know what they are voting for or against. therefore, the voting is already sabotaged" [32]

I propose closing this charade. Neither soviet communist politicians, nor users talking like this, won't understand the minimum of good sense in this life. Buah.

Moldopodo, you don't deserve the attention of replying you sarcasticly. I regret my wasted time. You don't deserve the effort to type. From me, you deserve nothing. Adriatikus 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, he's done even more:

  • "please, we are no at a gypsy bazaar"
  • "Here we are, the typical Romanian input already gives its results"
  • "Typical argumentation from a Romanian user - plain rhetorics to fill in the blank space on the talk page and no source."
  • "I have really hard time organising a constructive debate with Romanain users like you"
  • "You see, in a civilised society it is considered a bad manner to answer a question with a question (I guess this is not part of the society you are in)" (follows the above line)
  • " the dialect argument is nothing else as a typical Romanian way of leading the discussion - deviating from the original subject (...) Romanian users, please source your arguments. It's a voting, not a bazaar with gypsies walking around telling stories on what their would be friends think of the subject and gradually deviating the topic to something else."
  • "This is unfortunately so typical of Romanian users and shows the civility level of contradictional debate they are able to hold - level of a gypsy bazaar where everyone can lie and invent whetever comes in the head without any reference or proof whatsoever."
  • "This type of reasoning is very typical of Romanian users unfortunately - blatant lie with no justification, just like at a gypsy bazaar"
  • "One part of your message I strongly reject is labelling "Moldovenists" users who voted for the new code. "chauvinistic Romanian expansionists" may be very well placed, since certain Romanian users simply deny the existence of anything Moldavian: language, nation, state"

So, does they suffice for closing this "debate"? Adriatikus 04:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISO 639-3[edit]

There is recognition from the ISO-639-3 for Moldovan as a separate language from this standard... There is no such recognition from Ethnologue but that is NOT the standard.. Thanks, GerardM 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I consider that if Romanians are more numerous in Wikipedia that Moldovans, they haven't right to dictate the rights over the Romanian language. Also, they should have a more tolerant attitude vise Moldovans, because I think that this is unjust that a recognized international language can't have a page on Wikipedia. Also, I think that Romanians consider Republic of Moldova his province. Actually, hasn't a place for an Independent and Sovereign Republic of Moldova --Serhio 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That project is the Wikipedia in the Romanian language, not the Wikipedia of Romania. As I've said several times before, not only citizens of Moldova are welcome, but they are already there. Please stop trying to turn this into something it's not. --Gutza 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That project is the Bucharest Wikipedia where a certain someone acts as if he were elected as dictator for life. Yeah, go ahead and delete this comment, too. That's what you're so good at. --Anittas 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anittas, you have surprised me yet again. I never thought we'd agree on anything, but I'm pleasantly surprised. Down with the Bucharest Wikipedia! --Node ue 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trolling isn't enough, you're stalking me now? --Gutza 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They go hand in hand. --Anittas 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, leave your arguments away. As I also wrote above, your argument is a formal one. De facto is vice-versa. Only after my complains the main page of romanian (as country) wikipedia was modified. Romanians don't seemed to know other romanian-speacking people but inside of Romania. --Serhio 08:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, that is your opinion, your impression, your POV -- don't confuse it with fact. Nothing changed after your "complaints", except that time has passed (and I assure you that would've happened without your intervention just as effectively), and that piece of news is now obsolete. Not only that, but I have already explained this matter above, I don't see why you keep pretending you don't understand. --Gutza 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So far the discussion/voting seems quite sabotaged by a number of Romanian users for the following reason. The voting was on renaming the into, but turned into uncivil argumentation by mostly Romanian users of how neither Moldova, nor Moldavian language exist. This kind of argumentation is false in the first hand and irrelevant in the second hand (all of this goes without saying a word on ethno-racism which certainly merits itsplace here as well, but I will refrain from it). The question whether Moldova, Moldavian nation old of 950 years, just as its language old of 950 years exist - is not an issue of the discussion. Unfortunately, as it happened on numerous occasions with Romanian users, the civility of this disussion was compromised (other example of sabotage en:Talk:Bălţi, en:Talk:Bendery and so on). Moreover, this forum (chosen by me, oh well) seems not to be the most appropriate one to address the matter, as the language committee seems not to be the right instance. So, if we can find an appropriate forum and discuss the point raised and not other false and irrelevant points, compromising the good and constructive discussion.--Moldopodotalk 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see anyone being uncivil and hinting at racism on this page except yourself -- you're the one who has made no less than five references to gypsies on this page, where no discussion on the topic of Roma has ever been raised; you're the one who has accused others of racism four times on this page, where no reference to racism of any kind exists; you're the only one accusing others of lying, sabotaging and acting in bad faith, when you make no efforts whatsoever to work towards consensus or a constructive solution to what you see as a problem; you're the one copy-pasting huge chunks of text, inserting useless remarks which have no discernible constructive purpose, making blanket statements about Romanians, and generally offending people. As such, could you please at least spare us the part where you victimize yourself? To be perfectly honest, it's a bit nauseating. Thank you. --Gutza 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. The Annals of Jan Długosz ISBN 1-901019-00-4, p. 593
  2. Materials and research on archeology and ethnography of the Moldavian SSR, Kishinev, 1964
  3. Contemporary Lietrary Moldavian Language 1—2, Chisinau, 1969—1970
  4. Dimitrie Cantemir Description of Moldova 1716
  5. ISO639DB Moldavan language
  6. Codes for the Representation of Names of Languages ISO 639-2
  7. The Annals of Jan Długosz ISBN 1-901019-00-4, p. 593
  8. Materials and research on archeology and ethnography of the Moldavian SSR, Kishinev, 1964
  9. Contemporary Lietrary Moldavian Language 1—2, Chisinau, 1969—1970
  10. Dimitrie Cantemir Description of Moldova 1716