Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 4

Vandalism-protected

I protected the article against the revert war by anonymous editors. In the meantime will be happy to add to the article any fact (including any published opinion) and to correct any non-neutral phrasing. I will not grant any request to delete any piece without solid proof that the information is false. mikka (t) 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No Mikkalai. First unblock then talk.

Nobody accepts your monopol on page and everything.

No dear friend. The receng flock of anons reversals, which resulted in deletion of correct information, caused this. The article was kept unprotected for very long time, with pretty heated discussions and going back and forth. But this concerted revert war is inadmissible. mikka (t) 20:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No! You lie. I am not your friend.

You made this. You are the only one who reverted without any explanation. 'Cause you don't try to understand that they are the same. They are identical. Carbon copy. There is not a unitary standard Moldovan langauge, and you cannont prove that there exists. It is a non-sense. But you are only abusing of administrative rights. Do you? Do you like it? Enjoy yourself.

If you protected the article, then how come it was recently edited, again? I support the idea of protecting the article. --Anittas 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I can do it only temporarily, because I am involved in editing. Please support my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. mikka (t) 21:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy/neutrality dispute

Since there is a tag, it is time to start systematically deal with disagreements. Please list them item by item, for systematic discussion, with references and without political rant that wastes editor's time. Any personal attacks, hints to political or national affiliations and other things that may be interpreted as even mild disrespect to editors will be deleted. mikka (t) 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no Moldovan language

• • This issue will not be discussed. It was hundreds of years ago, it was attempted to be "recreated" by Soviets, and it exists now, at least as a political notion, regardless its identity with Romanian. mikka (t) 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The rest is yours. As I said several days ago, I am retired from any contributions to this article and keeping only a civilized order of discussion. mikka (t) 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• (1) There is no Moldovan language
  • And it will be disscused here. Who are you to stop us?

Read some history books then come back here. Moldova in its entire history was populated by Moldavians (Romanians) and they speak Romanian. Their language have allways been romanian. It is recognized officially by all the international organizations (ONU, EU, OSCE, Council of Europe...), States: USA, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Romania,...., Universities, Academia,... that is identical with romanian. If you change the name this doesn't bring anything new. The substance is the same. Here we proved that is identical despite the name.

And of course it was hundreds of years ago, a lot before "soviets" and "russians" because it was the romanian language they spoke since they were romanians. What do you not understand? Tell us! That Wallachians, Moldavians, Transilvanians are not romanians? They are romanians. And they speak the same language: romanian.

First this paragraph then the others also.

<unsigned>

Please sign your post.

It does not matter who and what recognized, as long as the word was used 600, 60, and 6 years ago. And the purpose of the article is to discuss the term. therefore I say that the issue will not be discussed: the article Moldovan language will exist and any attempts to remove information from it will be dealt as vandalism. mikka (t) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First sentence of the intro

The first sentence of the intro is accurate, but I don't think the gives a fair description:

Moldovan is an Eastern Romance language...

Just as we wouldn't say about American English:

American English is a Western Germanic language...

bogdan 22:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree, Bogdan. It needs to be changed. Alexander 007 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlike "American English", Moldovan is (tomorrow we will write: "was") officially declared as "language". And this article is about "language" as a fact of political history. Period. I am tired to repeat that in many places on the Earth the notion of "language" is purely political. . The second sentence of the gives the explanation of this. And, anticipating your possible objection it is not "identical" with Romanian: Soviet time put a certain imprint on it; and it doesn't matter whether big or small. You are welcome to write an article Moldovan dialect, if such one exists (at least Ehnologue thinks so). mikka (t) 00:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, what are the suggestions? mikka (t) 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputes

Hi. So these are the problems I have with the current article:

• "classified as dialect of Romanian (rum)" (in the infobox) - Ethnologue classifies it as Romanian, not as a dialect. It has "Moldavian" as a dialect, referring to the dialect of Moldova region and the Republic of Moldova, just as it has Transylvanian as a dialect. I think this article fails to make a difference between spoken Moldovan, which is fairly similar to that spoken in the Romanian region of Moldova, but with some differences to written Romanian, and written Moldovan, which is virtually identical to Romanian and cannot be considered a dialect per se.
  • Yes, it defines Moldavian as synonym; it also lists Moldavian as a dialect. Added. mikka (t) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• "The spoken language in Moldova is part of the Moldavian dialect, also spoken in Eastern Romania." --> "... the Moldavian dialect of Romanian" I think makes sense here more.

Added. mikka (t) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• In the official view section, it must be added (and I'm finding a proper source on this) that in this month, during the Tăriceanu-Tarlev meeting, Tarlev declared that the two countries "share a common language" (hence implying that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language).

  There is already a quotation of one politician about this. A sentence may be added, kind of: "many high-rank Moldovan officials declared that M & R are the same." At the same time an explanation must be added why the change of the langauge name failed. Surely, someone's opinion here, kind of "they were afraid Russia blackmail" is bullshit. mikka (t) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Other than that, the article is fairly good. I just think it a bit strange, there are many very short sections. I think the previous arrangement, with "Romanian vs Moldovan" as a section, may have been better. Ronline 23:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alphabet and spelling sections should be merged and the "Linguistic view" and "Official view" should be expanded.

merging done. mikka (t) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the first subsection of "History and Politics" should be more detailed. bogdan 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to add details. But obviously it is much more fun to wage a war. mikka (t) 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Node ue's

Mikka, I'll list my objections to the currentversion one by one.

• "Presently the Moldovan language...Romanian" -> "Moldovan...Romanian, the official language of Romania" -- I'm not sure what goal the "presently" achieves, and I think it's important to emphasise that we're talking about two official languages here.
  • "Presently" means just this: "presently", during the efforts to make the languages identical. I am still waiting for someone to find good comparison, but in 1960s, in my own memory there was a good deal of minor, but noticeable difference, starting with last names "Присакару" vs. "Присакарь", etc. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Mikka, my main issue here was with "Romanian" vs "Romanian, the official language of Romania". This is the change I cared about. "Presently" seems unnatural here, but doesn't make much of a difference. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Letopiseatzul section -- Current version says "established that... _are_ essentially the same language". In the older version, it said "established that... _dialects of the time were_ essentially the same language". This seems important, because a 300-year-old source cannot comment on the modern situation.
  • Actually, the 300-year-old source says something like this, but absolutely not in this way. It is available online (see also this talk page above), and you may se yourself what it says and write a correct description. mikka (t)
    • In that case, the section should be removed altogether pending a description more faithful to Ureche's source, as it's obviously wildly inaccurate as it is. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please provide a more accurate version. Ureche did imply the unity of peoples in some way. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• "As concerning the education" -> "Concerning education" -- the former is awkwardly worded and does not sound like good English. It doesn't change the meaning, but it does sound much more natural in my way.
• "seminary of chishinau" -> "chisinau seminary" -- same thing. It seems a more natural way to say the same thing.
• "ukraine" -> "the Ukraine" -- in English, there are some placenames that are supposed to have "the" in front, as in "the Sudan", "the Lebanon" (not used so much anymore), "the Ukraine"...
  • This is discussed in the Ukraine article and concluded that current preferrable usage is without article. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I still dispute this one. Most newspapers here say "the Ukraine", I hear it on the radio, and on television. Sure, some people just say "Ukraine", but it seems all sophisticated and professional sources use the definite article. However, it's not a glaring error, and it doesn't change the meaning of the page, so I don't think it's immediately important. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It will take some time to settle, but, I repeat, there is a tendency, supported in wikipedia, to abandon "the". We don't write "the Romaninia", "the Moldova", "the Mircea Snegur". Ukraine is a proper name, like Zimbabwe. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Just because most proper names don't take a definite article doesn't mean no proper names do. We don't say "the Mircea Snegur", but it is still normal to say "the Sudan", "the Ukraine", "the Lebanon". Do a google search of "the ukraine", and then one of "the romania". Compare the drastic difference in results. --Node 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, in this case google is not an argument. In wikipedia, for consisitency it will be "Ukraine", without "the". The dispute on this issue closed mikka (t) 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• "the migration of the population, including" -> "all this back and forth motion, along with" -- The original phrase ("back and forth motion") was referring to the transfer of territory between Russia and Romania. Vxkmai mistakenly interpreted it as referring to movements of population.
  • Not only Vxkmai. I was thinking in the same way. You must write in plain words exactly what you mean: "transfed of the territory". At the same time, "transfer of territory" means little for langauge, but migration does. So the "migration" version is better. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The sentences just prior to that explain the history of shifts in territory between Russia and Moldova. Migration, in this case, was a consequence of transfer of territory. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Russian migration was the result of occupation of Soviet Union, not of motion back and forth. There was no notable migration of Turks into Moldova, AFAIK. Your phrase is unnecessarily general. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, there was migration of Turks. The hundreds of thousands of Gagauz are a living testament to that. They came from the Gagauz region of Turkey. --Node 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
          • We are not speaking about the influence of Turkish language here. Besides, from Gagauz article I read that Gagauz were moved to Bessarabia during Imperisl Russia times. But sisnce you insist here, I am ading "territory transfer", since this was fact. mikka (t) 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• "would be reunited" -> "will become one" -- Vxkmai's version supports a Romanian nationalist view that Basarabia is rightfully part of Romania. Basarabia was long part of many different empires. Romanians speak of "reunification", but it could equally be "reunited" with Turkey, Ukraine, or Russia. "will become one" seems more NPOV to me.
  • We have a certain context here. the sentence is not speaking about Turkey, but about Romania. No confusion possible, and the meaning is the same. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, I dispute the "reunited". Not because it's confusing, or ambiguous. But because _reunite_ and _become one_ have very different connotations. If you search for "reunited" on Google, you will find that in most contexts it refers to a good or desireable circumstance. This is a connotation, something you won't find in a dictionary. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a positive connotation. The phrase is in the context of Stalin, and for him it was indeed very desirable. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• "banned" -> "forbidden" -- a difference of connotations. "forbidden" implies to me that they were completely disallowed and anybody using them would be persecuted, whereas "banned" implies to me that they were just gently told "don't use these anymore, they're not allowed" with no punishment.
  • I am afraid you have wrong feeling about English in this place. Please make a habit to check your opinions with a vocabulary. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Connotations are not listed in dictionaries. Connotations are more subtle than the meaning of a word. For example, "impoverished" and "poor" have the same meaning in many circumstances, but they have different connotations -- "impoverished" gives the impression that it is something that has befallen a person, and is not their fault, while "poor" is more neutral. You don't find that in a dictionary. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Jst buy a better dictionary, namely a dictionary of langauge usage, not just kind of "Italian-English.". You may also read wikipedia :-) (Ban) mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• "They were largely attended ... of Moldova" -> (removed) -- this section was pure speculation, and biased towards a pro-Romanian POV. There are no sources to back up that speculation. Also, there are no sources for the "they were largely attended by" part.
  • I am inclined to agree with this phrase. I don't believe that older population would waste time to rally for langauge. I would blieve they would rally for salary raise or something. In any case, this is hardly a dramatic error; you simply had to ask for reference from the author and label it with {{fact}} tag, rather than delete. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not that. It's the conjuecture in that phrase -- "perhaps an indication of future linguistic and political trends in the country" obviously doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article unless it is cited as an expert opinion. "perhaps" is the key word here. Also, as I recall, media reports indicated that many of the demonstrators were teachers and intellectuals. Being myself a youth, I would be really surprised if such a great deal of youth turned out to protest in regard to such an issue, when youth are often so apathetic. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • After reading the addition carefully, I can explain you why it was attended by youth: the issue was mandatory foreign langauge (is this correct?). I am 100% sure they would prefer English instead. "Perhaps" part removed as guesswork, whoever said it, even if George Bush. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, but again, that's not the main issue there. The conjectural phrase saying "perhaps an indication of future..." is the part I take extreme exception to. --Node 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• "its contents are disputed as being neologism resulting from Russification" -> "that is not the case since some of the words weren't even real words" -- they weren't _neologisms_ borrowed from Russian, they were just fake words. They were nonexistant, a figment of Stati's imagination by all accounts. A good portion of his dictionary is composed of such nonsense words.
  • Stati probably had them both. You beter give a couple examples of "invented" words. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But nobody disputes that the neologisms are neologisms resulting from russification. As for examples, see for yourself: [1] --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't want to "see". Just pick 1-2 most interesting cases and add write them here. mikka (t) 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll do that later. ----Node 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• "== Linguistic view ==" -> "== Romanian vs. Moldovan ==" -- Vxkmai inserrted a highly POV, and unsourced statement regarding the view of "most experts", and "minor", all of which are unacceptable. The section I re-added, however, gave specific opinions of various prominent linguists and politicians, and was sourced.
  • The only thing is missing is about "dialect continuity". I don't see any lingusts' opinions about this in your text that I reverted. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I need to check that further. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Constitutional comparison is unacceptable. I do have a comparison from a reliable source which shows countless differences, from Dyer in 1998. The source is written by an expert, and is relatively current. I proposed it on the talkpage, but it was dismissed by Bogdan, Bonaparte, Anittas, Ronline, Dpotop, et alia, as invalid for various reasons. I contend that, if my more recent and more reliably sourced comparison is disallowed, their comparison should not be present either.
• Comparison of constitutions is acceptable to demonstrate the crrent trend. However an example of differences (possibly from the past) would also be good. mikka (t) 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all. I did not make those arguments specifically because I felt that all of my changes were so minor as to be undisputed. However, you got angry because of an alleged wholesale revert on my part and in turn reverted me, so now I have supported every single reversion I made (with the exception of two which are trivial). Unless you have a specific dispute for these points, I request you change back. --Node 05:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Node - and I'm adressing this to everyone, actually - I think it's extremely important to understand the difference between spoken Moldovan and written Moldovan. You can't have a spoken Moldovan source compared to a written Romanian source - that's what constitutes artifical difference. Transylvanian spoken Romanian is different to Ferentari (a Roma quarter of Bucharest) spoken Romanian. Are they different languages? No. So, while the constitution may not be a good comparison simply because they differ between the two countries, we need a text that shows the difference between Moldovan and Romanian. The text you put forward before basically showed synonyms that were not particular to Moldova. That's why we didn't accept it. Secondly - Mikka, I appreciate your neutrality here. Just one thing - the Tarlev-Tăriceanu meeting is never mentioned here. We can mention that some government officials consider the two languages equal, but I think it's very important to insert a quote that the prime minister of Moldova thinks the two languages are the same. Ronline 08:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it nonetheless came from a very reliable source. Thus, if you are to disallow it, I don't see why your comparison should be allowed. --Node 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please write the phrase about prime minister, and I replace the old one (surely we don't want to pile quotations here) starting with a phrase, kind of, "several high-ranked officials stated that... etc. " mikka (t) 09:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. It was Tăriceanu that said that quote about the two countries sharing the same language, not Tarlev. I propose we say, before the Ion Morei quote, that "several high-ranked officials have stated that Romania and Moldova share the same language... for example, Ion Morei..." Additionally, the Republic of Moldova's Embassies abroad recognise the language as Romanian, as seen at [2] I think that must be noted in "Official view".

I think this should be added to: "Academy of Sciences of Moldova calls the language Romanian" --> "Academy of Sciences of Moldova calls the language Romanian, as do a number of government departments, and Moldova's diplomatic missions abroad. Several high-ranked officials have also stated that Romania and Moldova share the same language. For example, in 2004, the Moldovan Minister of Justice ... <Ion Morei section>" Ronline 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't recognise the fact that many government departments refer to the language as "Moldovan", as do many high-ranking officials. "Moldovenism" (or after Cimpoi, "moldovenismul primitiv") is still a powerful force in the Moldovan government, and people of Russian and Ukrainian descent particularly seem to have a greater tendency to refer to the language as "Moldovan". --Node 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldavan

Your famous Ethnologue also writes "called Moldavan in moldova" Certainly this is bullshit. It is called "limba moldovenească" there. The question is: who calls it Moldavan?

That's probably a spelling mistake. Ethnologue has many of them. Ronline 08:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Things that are acceptable and others that are not concerning the so-called Moldovan language

• Things that are acceptable:

(1).Identity Moldovan = Romanian and for this one it must be a redirect link to Romanian

the policy of wikipedia to split long aricle into shorter ones, not to redirect into one huge article. There was a historical period where the notion of Moldovan language existed, and this article is about this period of history of the Romanian language. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well :). YOU lie again. They were called Moldavians, 'cause they live in Moldavia. They were romanians. They speak romanian.

Did you get it now? Put the text as first raw!

(2). There is no unitary Moldovan language as a General Characterization of Moldovan language

Well, it was. And it was called "лимба молдовеняскэ". And there were textbooks and dictionaries. Also, perhaps you may want to write an article, unitary language. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

False again what you say. All these were fabricated by false people (no offense please, but they look very much like your style). So, all those textbooks, dictionary could not prove that are different. Anyway it was a good joke those materials. Please, :) bring some better arguments, not material for kids. Anyway, they are not scientific and not professional made, all linguists from the world agreed that There is no unitary Moldovan language as a General Characterization of Moldovan language. If they had proved why don't you accept this fact?

Put this in text as second raw!

(3). An official standard Moldovan language as such does not exist: there are however variants of the Romanian language spoken in Moldova; and these are, mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Moldavian".

the official standard existed, even if did not differ much from Romanian. "Limba moldovenească" term was spoken 600 years ago, "political reasons" is wrong phrasing. It is a tradition to call dialects by regions. And Romanian linguists recognize "graiul moldovenesc". mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OH...You lie again. I hope it was intentioned this time. Otherwise I may think it was on purpose. You should stop your bias edits anyway.

The official standard does not exist. Even if you have a different name, only the name does not change the substance, the structure and so on. Read the example of the Consitution. That is a good start for you. You will see that they are identical.

Well again, but for the last time. MOLDAVIANS ARE ROMANIANS. THEY SPEAK ROMANIAN. Of course every person from Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldova, Dobrogea, Banat they spoke ROMANIAN. Even 600 years ago! It doesn't matter where they live, the language was the same! And about "graiul moldovenesc" again you prove that you really have no idea about it. IT IS LIKE AN ACCENT. And an accent is not DIALECT, and is not LANGUAGE either.

Put the text in the text as third raw!

(4). It was official recognized "Romanian language" as official language for short period of time then was reverted to "Moldovan" under pressure of Russia's blackmail (no gas, no electricity, like these days according to BBC [www.bbc.co.uk/romanian])

• • Please provide a solid reference and an exact quotation. It is an interesting fact, if it is true. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They were presented but you just ignored them as ussual.

AS FOR THE REST WE'LL DISSCUSS ONLY WHEN THE ABOVE ARE MADE.

• Other things we may discuss here, like the:

(1). Russian persecution and russification

• No problemo. Facts, please, with references. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(2). The artificial creation of the term "Moldovan"

• No rtificial. Moldova/Moldovan existed for centuries. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(3). Evolution of the term "Moldovan", how was imposed with force, deportations of the romanian people in Siberia and so on...

• In the context of the language it may be phrased in the following form: educated Romanian people were persecuted as "bourgeois nationalists". References and numbers, please. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(4). Soviet linguists, anti-romanizators linguists, and so on... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.79.157 (talk • contribs) .

• the term "anti-romanizatiors" was not in use, AFAIK. mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know this is very politically-charged, but it may be important to note why the language was called Moldovan even after independence. One school of thought says it's because of a true separate Moldovan identity (i.e. Moldovans themselves didn't want to identify as Romanians). The other school of thought says it was due to pressure. Maybe not true blackmail, but at least a desire not to cause further instability in the Transnistrian and Gagauz contexts. Gagauzia and Transnistria were problematic simply because there was the fear that Moldova would unite with Romania. So, by extension, it is quite plausible to say that the reason why the language remained as "Moldovan" was, at least in part, due to a desire for a compromise solution that wouldn't disintegrate the country. Ronline 11:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

At the moment of reversal back the country saw already deeply disintegrated. Also, we need published opinions here, as much as I believe you.mikka (t) 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

<<< repetition removed >>>

Comparison of a similar case : - Flemish "language"

The following paragraph is the present page of the so called "Flemish language". Just take a short look. It is the same case as it is here.

"An official standard Flemish language as such does not exist: there are however variants of the Dutch language spoken in Belgium; and these are, mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Flemish".

As you can see others have also some similar problems but their approch is much more..how should I say ...DEMOCTRATICAL.

-It is recognized that there is not a An official standard Flemish language as such does not exist and " mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Flemish". "

<< attack removed >>>

The languages are identical and this thing must be said in the first line (whatever the name you used to call it)

This opinion is added to the intro. mikka (t) 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The second line must state that "THERE is not unitary standard language called Moldovan language"

Disagreed. See above. mikka (t)

PS. There are more examples of "languages" created over night for political resons and maybe we should bring them here. And they must be taken into consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.79.157 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, this comparison is actually quite relevant. There is one significant difference though - historical context. I don't think lingusitics can operate in a political vacuum. Flemish has never been recognised as an official language, Flanders never went through what Moldova went through. The contexts are therefore very different. You see, Moldovan does officially have a written version, even if it is extremely similar to Romanian. And the first section does say "Presently the Moldovan language, in its official form, is near-identical to Romanian." Ronline 11:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it should be unprotected again. He still makes BIAS edits and does not take into account any of our arguments. Instead he continues to be some kind of supporter of a "RUSSIAN REVISIONISM". He does not accept that they are identical. Even if for a short period of time it was recognized Romanian language as official language. Maybe he can tell us how quickly can be changed a language into another one completely different only in 4 (FOUR) years!

It will be unprotected only after you guys learn to behave and learn the policies of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not democracy and not anarchy. Either you follow the rules, or you are out. mikka (t) 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why because is the same as the Flemish(linguistics)([[3]]),and only for political reasons it was changed the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.79.157 (talk • contribs) .

This is already written in the article in several places. mikka (t) 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)