Hi,
The conflict at the Moldovan Wikipedia has reignited.
A new user made a page called "Alegeri" (elections).
It starts with him espousing his POVs.
The requirements of the vote are:
1) You have to speak Romanian/Moldovan "adequately". Whether or not your skills are "adequate", is to be judged by this particular user himself. 2) You have to have at least 25 contributions on the Moldovan Wikipedia... OR the Romanian Wikipedia!!!
Now, that strikes me as inherently unfair. Romanian Wikipedians are allowed to vote, sort of like a free pass? But no other Wikimedians?? It's not the ROmanian Wikipedia after all, it's the Moldovan Wikipedia!
You may argue all you want about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are a single language, whether or not that Wikipedia should exist, but to let everybody from one Wiki vote for the future of another one, but nobody from any other wikis may participate, seems inherently unfair.
The same user has been very... shall we say, "headstrong". He moved dozens and dozens of pages from Cyrillic titles to Latin titles (instead of creating brand-new pages in Latin), and replaced their entire contents with direct copy from ro.wiki, systematically. He obviously didn't even review his work, because many images were broken because the image tag for ro: ([[imagine:...]]) doesn't work on mo.wiki (you have to use the default, [[image:...]]).
Now, so far, of all the people who voted, the vast majority are Romanians. How is that fair? Romanians get to decide the future of the Moldovan Wikipedia, but no *other* foreigners may weigh in?
Well, maybe some Romanians don't see themselves as foreigners, but in the eyes of the world, they are. And besides, very clearly, there are two separate subdomains. Whether or not Romanians are Moldovans and vice-versa, very clearly most ro.wikipedians are NOT mo.wikipedians, though a few are.
Your thoughts, please?
Also, I encourage everybody to vote. I explained it at the enwiki village pump--news.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
Hi,
The conflict at the Moldovan Wikipedia has reignited.
A new user made a page called "Alegeri" (elections).
It starts with him espousing his POVs.
The requirements of the vote are:
- You have to speak Romanian/Moldovan "adequately". Whether or not
your skills are "adequate", is to be judged by this particular user himself. 2) You have to have at least 25 contributions on the Moldovan Wikipedia... OR the Romanian Wikipedia!!!
Now, that strikes me as inherently unfair. Romanian Wikipedians are allowed to vote, sort of like a free pass? But no other Wikimedians?? It's not the ROmanian Wikipedia after all, it's the Moldovan Wikipedia!
You may argue all you want about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are a single language, whether or not that Wikipedia should exist, but to let everybody from one Wiki vote for the future of another one, but nobody from any other wikis may participate, seems inherently unfair.
The same user has been very... shall we say, "headstrong". He moved dozens and dozens of pages from Cyrillic titles to Latin titles (instead of creating brand-new pages in Latin), and replaced their entire contents with direct copy from ro.wiki, systematically. He obviously didn't even review his work, because many images were broken because the image tag for ro: ([[imagine:...]]) doesn't work on mo.wiki (you have to use the default, [[image:...]]).
Now, so far, of all the people who voted, the vast majority are Romanians. How is that fair? Romanians get to decide the future of the Moldovan Wikipedia, but no *other* foreigners may weigh in?
Well, maybe some Romanians don't see themselves as foreigners, but in the eyes of the world, they are. And besides, very clearly, there are two separate subdomains. Whether or not Romanians are Moldovans and vice-versa, very clearly most ro.wikipedians are NOT mo.wikipedians, though a few are.
Your thoughts, please?
Voting is evil. If your description of events is accurate, then this user should be (to quote Garfield) dragged out into the street and shot.
It's fun to think that way, but what should actually be done?
It would be equally unfair to ban him from Wikipedia, he has a right to express his opinions.
Voting may be evil, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen anyways. Is there a way to compromise between Voting-is-evil and Voting-solves-everything? There must be, in some form or another.
Mark
On 13/01/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Hi,
The conflict at the Moldovan Wikipedia has reignited.
A new user made a page called "Alegeri" (elections).
It starts with him espousing his POVs.
The requirements of the vote are:
- You have to speak Romanian/Moldovan "adequately". Whether or not
your skills are "adequate", is to be judged by this particular user himself. 2) You have to have at least 25 contributions on the Moldovan Wikipedia... OR the Romanian Wikipedia!!!
Now, that strikes me as inherently unfair. Romanian Wikipedians are allowed to vote, sort of like a free pass? But no other Wikimedians?? It's not the ROmanian Wikipedia after all, it's the Moldovan Wikipedia!
You may argue all you want about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are a single language, whether or not that Wikipedia should exist, but to let everybody from one Wiki vote for the future of another one, but nobody from any other wikis may participate, seems inherently unfair.
The same user has been very... shall we say, "headstrong". He moved dozens and dozens of pages from Cyrillic titles to Latin titles (instead of creating brand-new pages in Latin), and replaced their entire contents with direct copy from ro.wiki, systematically. He obviously didn't even review his work, because many images were broken because the image tag for ro: ([[imagine:...]]) doesn't work on mo.wiki (you have to use the default, [[image:...]]).
Now, so far, of all the people who voted, the vast majority are Romanians. How is that fair? Romanians get to decide the future of the Moldovan Wikipedia, but no *other* foreigners may weigh in?
Well, maybe some Romanians don't see themselves as foreigners, but in the eyes of the world, they are. And besides, very clearly, there are two separate subdomains. Whether or not Romanians are Moldovans and vice-versa, very clearly most ro.wikipedians are NOT mo.wikipedians, though a few are.
Your thoughts, please?
Voting is evil. If your description of events is accurate, then this user should be (to quote Garfield) dragged out into the street and shot.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
It starts with him espousing his POVs.
I agree that this is mostly a Moldovan/Romanian POV on the current issue, still it does not lie in its statements. http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki /Wikipedia:Alegeri. And this I can tell, knowing all "four languages" and having made my school in Moldova (the Transnistria issue is somehow specific).
Now, so far, of all the people who voted, the vast majority areRomanians.
How is that fair? Romanians get to decide the future of theMoldovan Wikipedia, but no *other* foreigners may weigh in?
Probably the vote on http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alegeri is not quite fair. However, Moldova and Romania are inherently linked together. Historically Bessarabia (the present day Republic of Moldova, with slight modifications of course) is to be part of Romania and it was a simple historical accident that at the time when Moldavia united with Wallachia (in 1859, which become the foundation of modern Romania), Bessarabia was incorporated into the Russian empire (starting with 1812). This accident was corrected after the First World War when Bessarabia decided to unite with - already - Romania. To be continued... This is a personal and probably very subjective view of my country's history.
My point is that Romanians have the necessary legitimacy to require essentially the same as Moldovans do: to delete this Wikipedia. Especially that it is about the Romanian language that we are talking about. But I do not want to commence here this already annoying debate.
However, I do not believe it is fair to interdict other Wikipedians to vote there. Nor do I agree much with the 25 necessary contributions to be made on mo.wiki or ro.wiki. Personally, I cannot vote at the moment, although I believe I quite have the right. Anyway, anyone can do them in a matter of an hour. Not necessarily knowing the language.
My thoughts: taking into consideration the current stubbornness of the two camps (those for and against the deletion of the mo.wikipedia) consensus cannot be reached in a normal way. A vote may solve this down. A properly organized vote.
Still, those for the deletion of the mo.wiki come mainly from Moldova and Romania. And both Moldovans and Romanians have legitimate demands. Even though some are currently abroad (some for already a long time, others - like me - have just left Moldova), they all know what language we are speaking in Moldova. And they all speak this language. I do not think that the other camp can boast with the same legitimacy. If you tell me that there are Moldovans between those supporting the Wikipedia, I can bet that these are primarily Russian language speaking persons. From Russian speaking families. I may be wrong. (I recall that the Russian speaking minority in Moldova... Well, they do not feel love towards Moldovans and especially towards those considering themselves Romanians).
Furthermore, initially the "for the deletion camp" wanted to make this Wikipedia disappear and not reappear in any form. Finally, on [Wikipedia-l] Why MO.wikipedia. - Moldovan, are written in cyrillic ? ( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-December/042926.html ), we made a step backward and agreed to move the mo.wiki to a mo-cyr.wiki: it is agreed that this Moldovan Cyrillic language existed in its time (imposed) in MSSR and exists (is imposed) in Transnistria. This does not seem to satisfy the other camp.
This is an endless debate. The issue does not seem to interest much people on Wikipedia-I, especially those having the authority to make a change. And it does not get solved. And this is something that concerns our country and our language. And it is shown in a rather misinterpreted way on Wikipedia.
This is why Romanians and Moldovan's are getting angry from time to time; quite often, I think. This is why Wikipedia-I is flooded with issues surrounding the existence of the Moldovan Wikipedia. This is why pages like the one mentioned at the beginning of this message appear.
And problems around the Moldovan Wikipedia and a presumed Moldovan Cyrillic Wikipedia will appear as more Moldovans and Romanians discover it. Personally, when I saw it for the first time, I was nothing else but outraged.
And I am not that sure where will http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4409 lead to. Neither am I sure what is fairer: the vote under discussion or keeping this entire abnormal Wikipedia alive (personal opinion).
-- Liviu
Hello everybody, especially Node_ue
It starts with him espousing his POVs.
You know what, I think everything one says is a POV.
The requirements of the vote are:
- You have to speak Romanian/Moldovan "adequately". Whether or not
your skills are "adequate", is to be judged by this particular user himself. 2) You have to have at least 25 contributions on the Moldovan Wikipedia... OR the Romanian Wikipedia!!!
Now, that strikes me as inherently unfair. Romanian Wikipedians are allowed to vote, sort of like a free pass? But no other Wikimedians?? It's not the ROmanian Wikipedia after all, it's the Moldovan Wikipedia!
You may argue all you want about whether or not Moldovan and Romanian are a single language, whether or not that Wikipedia should exist, but to let everybody from one Wiki vote for the future of another one, but nobody from any other wikis may participate, seems inherently unfair.
Why should people from other Wikis vote for the future of mo. ? The future of mo. is mostly a concern of Moldovans and Romanians, since it (the "Moldavian" language) is their native language. Would you consider it OK if all the wikipedians decided to open an Wiki in American (yes, I do know there's no such language, but that's exactly the point)? It just like the ellections in a country: why should citizens (in this case speakers) of another country (in this case language) vote for the fate of the country (in this case, Wiki)? It would be absurd.
The same user has been very... shall we say, "headstrong". He moved
dozens and dozens of pages from Cyrillic titles to Latin titles (instead of creating brand-new pages in Latin), and replaced their entire contents with direct copy from ro.wiki, systematically.
Well, what's the point of keeping mo., if it's just like ro. ?
Now, so far, of all the people who voted, the vast majority are
Romanians. How is that fair? Romanians get to decide the future of the Moldovan Wikipedia, but no *other* foreigners may weigh in?
Romanians are not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
Well, maybe some Romanians don't see themselves as foreigners, but in
the eyes of the world, they are.
And it's going to be this way as long as people are uninformed by such pages as mo.wikipedia.org! All the people should know that: There is no Moldovan/Moldavian/Moldoveneasca Language! I am saying this as a person who has lived all his life in Moldova, who speaks Romanian and Russian fluently and who knows much about the history of his nation's language and traditions.
And please, do not say such things as: "Most of the people who voted were Romanians (or sth else)", because you HAVE NOT looked in their passports and you DO NOT really know who they are, you just know they speak Romanian fluently.
-- Sincerely, Eugeniu
You know what, I think everything one says is a POV.
Yes, and on Wikipedia, people try to work together to make it more neutral. However, Pavel was not open to that.
Why should people from other Wikis vote for the future of mo. ? The future of mo. is mostly a concern of Moldovans and Romanians, since it (the "Moldavian" language) is their native language.
Well, it's fine if Romanians vote -- IF they are active members of mo.wiki. As you said, "why should people from other Wikis vote"?? If you want to include people who aren't active on mo.wiki but are on ro.wiki, this seems unfair and I think because of that you should extend it to all Wikimedians.
Would you consider it OK if all the wikipedians decided to open an Wiki in American (yes, I do know there's no such language, but that's exactly the point)? It just like the ellections in a country: why should citizens (in this case speakers) of another country (in this case language) vote for the fate of the country (in this case, Wiki)? It would be absurd.
Umm, that's what's been done in making such decisions so far. Somebody proposed an American Wikipedia on Meta, and the people who voted against it came from not only America but Australia, the Netherlands, Germany... and since Wikipedia is an international project, I think that's fair.
The vote to close the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, although started by a Serbian, is not limited to speakers of the language or residents of the countries or even members of those Wikipedias. It's open to all Wikimedians, as it should be -- such a monumental decision should be up to everybody.
Well, what's the point of keeping mo., if it's just like ro. ?
Please re-read that paragraph again. It wasn't just like ro.wiki until Pavel moved pages and replaced their contents...
Romanians are not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
Ro.wikipedians are. Romanians who are established mo.wikipedians, like Ronline, are not "foreigners". But most -- Bogdan, AdiJapan, Bonaparte -- are foreigners.
And it's going to be this way as long as people are uninformed by such pages as mo.wikipedia.org! All the people should know that: There is no Moldovan/Moldavian/Moldoveneasca Language!
About half of the native speakers of Limba Noastra in Rep. Moldova disagree with you. They consider they speak "limba moldoveneasca". If it was open-and-shut, there would be no controversy about language in R.Moldova, people would just accept the so-called "fact" you just said. But it's not 100% clear-cut, it's not obvious one way or the other. Different people came to different conclusions, splitting the country ideologically, and the government considers it "limba moldoveneasca". We can't just say on Wikipedia, "there is no Moldovan language", because it is _not neutral_ -- millions disagree.
I am saying this as a person who has lived all his life in Moldova, who speaks Romanian and Russian fluently and who knows much about the history of his nation's language and traditions.
...do you know of Grigore Ureche? In his Chronicles of the Moldovan Nation (letopisetul tarii moldovei), he has a chapter titled "about our Moldovan language" (pentru limba noastra moldoveneasca). He wrote his Chronicles in Cyrillic. He was not under Soviet time -- on the contrary, he was an early Moldovan patriot who wrote a lot of valuable material about his country. And this was before Russia annexed Bessarabia.
And please, do not say such things as: "Most of the people who voted were Romanians (or sth else)", because you HAVE NOT looked in their passports and you DO NOT really know who they are, you just know they speak Romanian fluently.
No -- I've encountered these people before. People such as AdiJapan, Bogdangiusca, Bonaparte, are all self-designated Romanians.
Mark
You know what, I think everything one says is a POV.
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. And Pavel, he is just one of the Moldovans and Romanians that strongly disagree to its existence. He is just showing his feelings more than others.
Well, what's the point of keeping mo., if it's just like ro. ?
Please re-read that paragraph again. It wasn't just like ro.wiki until Pavel moved pages and replaced their contents...
It is not Pavel to be blamed for the similarity of mo.wiki and ro.wiki. Taking into consideration that it is the same language on both Wikipedias, and that the are a lot of mo.wiki contents that are mere transliterations from ro.wiki - very bad transliterations, by the way -, the questions stays: "what's the point of keeping mo.?". Even if you do not have much knowledge in Romanian or Moldovan, you can convince yourself of the similarity of the articles: http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Гречия and http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grecia. This is not by far a singular example. I found it with the help of http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random.
Furthermore, this mo.wiki is full of errors and mistakes. It is really awful to read its pages. And this is due to the fact that most of the contributions and the two by far biggest contributors (Russ with 208 edits and Node_ue with 185, while the total number of articles is 360 on Dec 10, 2005 ) are made by people that do not know the Romanian language. The biggest Moldovan contributor on mo.wiki - to my knowledge - is Dmitriid [ http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmitriid], with a total of 10 contributions [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaMO.htm]. And even he is a native Russian speaker and knows Romanian at an intermediate level. This a place of high low-quality content.
My point is: Moldovan Wikipedia is disastrous at the moment and has no future.
Romanians are not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
Ro.wikipedians are. Romanians who are established mo.wikipedians, like Ronline, are not "foreigners". But most -- Bogdan, AdiJapan, Bonaparte -- are foreigners.
Read the previous messages. Any Romanian is directly concerned by mo.wikipedia and has all the right not to be considered as foreigner there.
And it's going to be this way as long as people are uninformed by such pages
as mo.wikipedia.org! All the people should know that: There is no Moldovan/Moldavian/Moldoveneasca Language!
About half of the native speakers of Limba Noastra in Rep. Moldova disagree with you. They consider they speak "limba moldoveneasca". If it was open-and-shut, there would be no controversy about language in R.Moldova, people would just accept the so-called "fact" you just said. But it's not 100% clear-cut, it's not obvious one way or the other. Different people came to different conclusions, splitting the country ideologically, and the government considers it "limba moldoveneasca". We can't just say on Wikipedia, "there is no Moldovan language", because it is _not neutral_ -- millions disagree.
Now, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova#Demographics , especially at the correctness of the 2004 census: "About 2004 census".
Now, about my already beloved Moldovan language. One may consider Moldovan from three points of view:
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 . [Article 13, The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.]
Secondly, this is the name of the dialect spoken in Moldova, that is a badly *spoken *Romanian. The written part stays identical to Romanian (minor, minor differences; far less that American and British English) and is more appropriate to the previous paragraph. It is better developed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan.
Thirdly, this is the name for the Romanian language written in a Cyrillic script. More detailed information about this script [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_alphabet]: "The Moldovan alphabet is a Cyrillic alphabet derived from the Russian alphabet and developed for the Romanian/Moldovan language in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. It was the official script in Moldavian ASSR and between 1940 and 1989 in the Moldavian SSR and still is the official and the only accepted alphabet in Transnistria." You may notice that Cyrillic Romanian/Moldovan was always * imposed* in Moldova beginning with stalinist time and continuing today in Transnistria. That is, Moldovans were not and are not enthusiastic, the least to say, on the use of the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. One could find more information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Artificial_evolution_of_Roman... . However, please notice that this page as well as some other Moldova related pages are *currently protected* and, consequently, their contents are disputed.
I am saying this as a person who has lived all his life in Moldova, who
speaks Romanian and Russian fluently and who knows much about the
history of
his nation's language and traditions.
...do you know of Grigore Ureche? In his Chronicles of the Moldovan Nation (letopisetul tarii moldovei), he has a chapter titled "about our Moldovan language" (pentru limba noastra moldoveneasca). He wrote his Chronicles in Cyrillic. He was not under Soviet time -- on the contrary, he was an early Moldovan patriot who wrote a lot of valuable material about his country. And this was before Russia annexed Bessarabia.
And Node, do you know of Grigore Ureche? Ever read what he wrote? And how in the earth did you make him a Moldovan patriot (as in opposition to Romanian nationalism, I guess). Take a nice look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigore_Ureche. In his chapter titled *about** **our Moldovan language,* "Ureche asserted that the Moldavian language was the same language as Wallachian and that Moldavians, Wallachians, and Transylvanians, were of the same ethnicity. [...] which would eventually lead to the rise of 18th century Romanian nationalism." Alternatively, please read http://www.scriptorium.ro/carti/grigore_ureche/grigore_ureche-letopisetul_ta... .
OK. So if anyone got to this line: congratulations!
-- Liviu
On 18/01/06, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
You know what, I think everything one says is a POV.
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. And Pavel, he is just one of the Moldovans and Romanians that strongly disagree to its existence. He is just showing his feelings more than others.
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.
Well, what's the point of keeping mo., if it's just like ro. ?
Please re-read that paragraph again. It wasn't just like ro.wiki until Pavel moved pages and replaced their contents...
It is not Pavel to be blamed for the similarity of mo.wiki and ro.wiki[...] http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random.
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.
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.
Romanians are not foreigners on the Moldovan Wikipedia!
Ro.wikipedians are. Romanians who are established mo.wikipedians, like Ronline, are not "foreigners". But most -- Bogdan, AdiJapan, Bonaparte -- are foreigners.
Read the previous messages. Any Romanian is directly concerned by mo.wikipedia and has all the right not to be considered as foreigner there.
I would dispute that.
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.
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.
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. Unfortunately Moldovans seem to use Wallachian writing exclusively since about 100 years ago.
Thirdly ... contents are disputed.
Always imposed? In Transnistria, some of the Latin schools were re-opened. 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?
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.
Mark
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
Node, please understand. I do not have anything against you having a different opinion. But, please, just please, do not impose it to those directly concerned.
On 30/01/06, Liviu Andronic landronimirc@gmail.com wrote:
Well Node, [snip] discussion.
.
It's not [snip] coherency?
Yes, it is.
Now, [snip] the following.
That's not neutral as it considers your POV -- that Moldovan and Romanian are "the same language" -- to be a Fact, which it is not, and will never be. There is no such thing as "the same language", for any two varieties -- it's a political discourse and not a linguistic one.
- *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
And when was it used until in Bessarabia? Bessarabia wasn't part of Moldavia in 1860.
- *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.
Stalin didn't invent it. Stalin may have had some cursory knowledge of linguistics, but I'm certain he didn't invent the Moldovan alphabet.
*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).
I know more Romanian than you and your unionist cronies claim. After all, I can understand Pavel, can't I? And I have produced coherent or at least mostly coherent statements in the past.
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).
"The same language" is, again, political rather than linguistic discourse. Moldovan and Romanian, Italian and Italian, Portuguese and Portuguese, My English and Your English, will never be "the same language" because there is no such concept, linguistically.
- *mo.wiki becomes [snip] rid of this Cyrillic script.
Not neutral.
What concerns Transnistria, it is the 14th, Russian 14th army that decides which language is more appropriate to the local population.
That's not exactly true, but then you already knew that. Read more about Transdniester and you will find the true situation.
Moldovan parents now have the freedom of choice in Transdniester, and the majority have chosen Cyrillic, despite the fact that they could send their kids to Latin schools. One could argue that they are afraid of consequences (political, social, economic) that might come from sending their kids to such a school, but it is their choice nonetheless.
Your point [snip] you?
No, it wasn't -- they were two very different places. The article about Chisinau at the mowiki and the article at the rowiki were very different byte-by-byte, but post-Pavel, they were identical. His fault.
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.
That's not "fixing it". If there are errors in an article on the English Wikipedia, if you advocate to move it or delete it, people will laugh in your face, even if it is full of them. You repair the errors individually, rather than deleting the whole product.
Like the popular phrase, "the operation was a success, but the patient is dead." You can't fix the errors in a product by simply eliminating the product.
Aftewards, [snip] Wikipedia.
That's because you haven't followed the events. I was there, first of all, and beyond that, there were at least 2 other native speakers (Elnoel and Vertaler) and possibly more.
As long as you wish.
GFY...
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
Well, that's a faulty assumption. If you look at any census results from any country which include language, you will find that it is almost never that everybody who claims a certain ethnic group is exactly congruent with language. I think it's probable that in Chisinau, there are Moldovans who only know Russian (or at least it is their mother tongue), Russians who only know Moldovan, Ukrainians who only know Gagauz, Bulgars who only know Ukrainian, Belarusans who only know Moldovan.
Especially considering the pre-independence linguistic trends of RSSM, it is naïve to think that ethnicity and language align 100%, or even 90%.
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.
1.8 million is still "millions". Ethnic DOES NOT COMPRISE LANGUAGE. Although the two are linked, they are far from identical. How is it that many Tibetans don't know Tibetan, or that almost all Cornish people speak only English?
Well, Node. I have to give [snip] Romanian.
For the first few articles, yes. Beyond that, NO!
Thirdly - how did you come [snip] and practice it.
You know it, you probably speak it, you just don't write it. You can find examples of it in lots of poetry.
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!
You're deluded if you think Moldovan writing is historically identical to Wallachian (or "Romanian"). Moldovan developed and continues to develop (but in a much more limited capacity) separate from Wallachian/Romanian.
Always imposed: beginning with 1930's - Stalin (MASSR), beginning with 1940
- same Stalin (MSSR), beginning with 1989 - Russian 14th Army
(Transnistria).
No... since a couple of years ago, it was a choice in Transnistria, also, many of the key policymakers in earlier times were themselves Moldovans.
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.
Hah. Everywhere says that -- they were re-opened as private schools -- even the PMR official website!! There are one or two high schools in Tiraspol which use the Latin alphabet today. Private schools which supposedly charge no fee but are funded by external sources.
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.
They could send their kids to a Latin school, home-school, send them to a Russian school, attempt to flee to Moldova or ROmania, or any number of other options. Instead, they chose to send their kids to a Cyrillic school. Your parents probably didn't have a choice.
But somehow I doubt most Moldovans care, or have ever really cared, about the alphabet they use, considering Moldova is the poorest country in Europe today and has almost always been largely agrarian in nature. And since when to farmers fight to the death over alphabets?
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." (
Still not seeing it. I still think it's more telling than anything the title of the chapter than any of its contents.
Mark
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org