Well Node, you and your separatist cronies, so as to - approximatively - cite you, accuse me and my unionist buddies, so as to exactly cite your politeness, of not being coherent. OK.
I am not going to lose much time on this discussion.
On 19/01/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com > wrote:
Yes, and on Wikipedia, people try to work together to make it more neutral. However, Pavel was not open to that.
This is why Moldovan Wikipedia ought to be deleted. It can never be a *neutral* place. It is from the very start of it a POV. [...]
That's a weird conclusion. If you want to just exprewss your opinions, that's fine, but if you're trying to actually respond coherently to somebody else's e-mail, your responses should follow directluy and logically (or at least demonstrably, if not logically) from the previous e-mail. Please, read the other messages in this thread.
It's not that weird a conclusion, Node. You have never been open to that (not to my knowledge, and maybe only once). So that such blame should not be thrown on Moldovans or Romanians. Satisfied of coherency?
Now, about making Wikipedia a neutral place and the mo.wiki issue. A trully neutral solution - in my opinion, and I will express my opinions as soon as they get in my mind either answering to your email or not as long as these are relevant - would be the following.
- *Ro.wiki keeps its Romanian content as normal*.
- *ro-cyr.wiki gets content in Cyrillic Romanian* using this alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Cyrillic_alphabet ), if some one deems it necessary to have such a Wikipedia. It is, by the way, the alphabet that Grigore Ureche used to write his works (and not the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet), but about this later. Ro.wiki should not get biscriptal because this alphabet is not representative of modern Romania and you will not find Romanians able to actually use this script. It was used till 1860, when Moldavia united Wallachia to create Romania
- *mo-cyr.wiki gets its content in Moldovan Cyrillic* using this alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet), invented in the 1930s by good old godfather Stalin, if you deem necessary to keep this Wikipedia. It should probably be named more appropriatly something like Moldovan/Romanian Cyrillic, but we logically cannot have two Romanian Cyrillics.
*Please note* that all these three scripts are used for writing the one and same language - Romanian (and Node, you can dispute this as long as you wish, but you cannot pronounce yourself on this matter without having any knowledge in Romanian). Of course the language evolves in time and the Romanian used by Grigore Ureche differs quite a lot from the one used by, say, Mihai Eminescu, who is also Moldovan and the national most known Romanian poet (he is someone of a hero in Romania).
- *mo.wiki becomes only a redirect *- written in Romanian - guiding you towards the existing Romanian related Wikipedias. It does not get any content as a Wikipedia for the Romanian language already exists. Romanian Cyrillic would not be appropriate for the same reasons: not representative in any way. Moldovan Cyrillic just does not fit with modern Moldova. As soon as we got our independance, we immediately got rid of this Cyrillic script. What concerns Transnistria, it is the 14th, Russian 14th army that decides which language is more appropriate to the local population.
Again, are you trying to respond to my e-mail? Your points are all valid and if you meant to make them independently, I will be happy to respond to them, but they don't seem to fit as responses to things I said.
Your point was: it is Pavel to blame for the similarity of mo.wiki and ro.wiki. My point was: the two Wikipedias are inherently similar. And it was so even before Pavel. What else do you want me to explain you?
Furthermore, this mo.wiki is full of errors [...] low-quality content.
Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
The entire point of a Wikipedia is that anyone may edit it. If you see an error, FIX IT! Don't just complain that there are so many errors here, it's so horrible... either do your part and try to fix it, or stop complaining -- you have no right to complain if you don't try to help with the problem.
Don't worry Node. If you have still not noticed it, I am currently trying from all my powers to FIX IT! By making this content be moved or deleted. Aftewards, maybe, just maybe, I will consider contributing to this Wikipedia. Although I doubt. And you have still not said a word on the fact that there is not one Moldovan - natively speaking this true Moldovan language of yours (because this is not my language) - to contribute to this Wikipedia and make it grow and try to make its contents survive. Or it is them who you are defending? As I cannot recall myself one native speaker of this true Moldovan language here on Wikipedia.
Romanians are not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
I would dispute that.
As long as you wish.
Now, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova#Demographics
, especially at the correctness of the 2004 census: "About 2004 census".
That page says 0 about languages. Just ethnicities. We are talking about languages. You and your unionist buddies too often confuse the two. Don't forget that there are ethnic Moldovans who don't speak the Moldovan language well, only Russian, and also Ukrainians or Russians who don't speak Ukrainian or Russian well only Moldovan. You can't equate language with ethnicity, especially not in modern Moldova.
How come 0? What about this: "*The precision of numbers about nationality/ethnicity and language was questioned.*"? (take this http://www.azi.md/news?ID=31931 and this http://www.azi.md/news?ID=31416 for reference). This census concerned languages as well, although I couldn't find statistics on this. Not yet. Although, logically, if one calls himself Romanian, he speaks Romanian. Russian - Russian. Ukrainian - either Russian or Ukrainian. Gagauz - Gagauz. About Moldovans - when someone tells you he is Moldovan and you ask him about the language he speaks, he will mostly certain give you one answer: Moldovan. However, big however, he will think of the Moldovan dialect that he is speaking day-to-day, and not of the Romanian language he is writing in any day-to-day documents, at school, etc. And still, my point stays: these millions of people (which cannot phisically be more than 3.6 million; which in half makes 1.8 millions - ça va for millions disagree) were not necessarily able to openly declare their ethnic (which comprises language) origin. Otherwise, if you dispose of other statistics, please tell me.
First of all this is the the name given by the Moldovan Constitution to the
Romanian language. I have also found a nice example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova#Comparison_with_Romanian
I, for one, would debate such a comparison. It was selected out of the entire two constitutions for just the 3 or 4 lines which are similar. If you look at constitutions of, say, Portugal and Spain, you can probably find the same thing.
Well, Node. I have to give you the bad news: I have just taken a look at Moldovan ( http://e-gov.moldova.md/moldova(test).nsf/bdedfca988b2db3c85256207004f45a9/f...) and Romanian ( http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=1#t1c0s0a1) constitutions, and article by article these are identical. Not necessarily always the content, but the language for sure. It is clear that the Moldovan one is a mere copy of the Romanian.
Spain and Portugal - take a look: http://www.parlamento.pt/const_leg/crp_port/crp_97_1.html#Artigo1 and http://www.constitucion.es/constitucion/castellano/titulo_preliminar.html. By far these are not identical. If you think of other countries, tell me. I'll check them too.
Secondly[...]Moldovan.
Whether or not you write in the real Moldovan language is up to you. In Rep. Moldova, not many people do. It actually seems more common in Romanian Moldova, where you can find it in poetry and such.
Thirdly - how did you come up with a "real Moldovan language"? Which one is this? I would like to know, because being a Moldovan I am supposed to know it and practice it.
Unfortunately Moldovans seem to use Wallachian writing exclusively
since about 100 years ago.
Do you understand what you are saying? Where did you come up with this language also? For the reference, it is Romanian that was always used in Wallachia, and that Wallachia is used only to distinguish the historical region called "Ţara Românească" - Romanian Country -, and modern Romania that is more or less the combination of Wallachia, Transilvania and Moldavia. I recall you that Moldavia is united with Romania and that in Moldavia they strangely enough write in Romanian and have nothing against it and speak either Romanian or something one may with difficulty classify as a Moldavian dialect. And that Moldova - present time Moldova - by mistake is not part of Romania. Moldova historically is a Romanian province!
Thirdly ... contents are disputed.
Always imposed?
Always imposed: beginning with 1930's - Stalin (MASSR), beginning with 1940 - same Stalin (MSSR), beginning with 1989 - Russian 14th Army (Transnistria).
In Transnistria, some of the Latin schools were
re-opened.
Please cite your sources. I couldn't find one word on this in Moldovan electronic newspapers. Better said nowhere on the net.
If Moldovans love the Latin alphabet so much, why are some
kids (in fact, the majority) Moldovan in Transnistria still going to the Cyrillics schools?
Funny question. Why did you go to school? But, so that I not be personal, why did I go to school? Because as a kid I was told to do so. Why the parents give their children to school? Because they want that their children have a future, that they get a minimum of education - the minimum that Transnistria under Putin can offer. And sometimes when it comes the question of the kids future, you don't ask much questions regarding the language.
And Node, do you know [...].html
Anittas wrote that absurd paragraph. If you take an actual look at the chronicles, Ureche never said anything so apparent. Instead, he mostly said things about a close kin, or mutual understanding, never anything about them being the same language.
Strange. Ro.wikipedia also agrees with Anittas absurdities: ( http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigore_Ureche#Opera - don't search too much, last paragraph). And even stranger, Grigore Ureche also agrees with these absurdities: „Rumânii, câţi să află lăcuitori la Ţara Ungurească şi la Ardeal şi la Maramoroşu, de la un loc suntu cu moldovénii şi toţi de la Râm să trag." ( http://www.scriptorium.ro/carti/grigore_ureche/grigore_ureche-letopisetul_ta...). So take a close look, Node. And the last time I wrote not basing myself on the en.wiki article, but on what I read in "Pentru limba noastră moldovenească" ( http://www.scriptorium.ro/carti/grigore_ureche/grigore_ureche-letopisetul_ta...).
OK. Enough of this chit-chat. I will answer to subsequant replies of yours only if you manage to get well on my nerves.
Regards, Liviu