| Revision as of 09:28, 14 February 2006 editAlex earlier account (talk | contribs)9,921 edits →From Washington D.C.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:27, 1 December 2008 edit undoDc76 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled9,756 editsm redirect added | ||
| (284 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| == Why the article split? == | |||
| I am just wondering. Was it simply to pull the content people were not arguing about out and put it somewhere? It does not leave very much in the other article. ] | ] 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Because this part is getting very long. The other article is supposed to talk about Moldovan, the current official language of Moldova and what happend hundreds of years ago is only marginally relevant to that article. ] 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. ] | ] 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I put a link in ]. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. ] 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sections added by Bonaparte == | |||
| I suspect that the large section of this article originally added by Bonaparte is a direct translation from a copyrighted work in Romanian -- he has only one reference for the whole thing, despite the fact that it's paragraphs long. It's also poorly written, and most of it repeats things already written elsewhere in the article using different, less neutral, wording. I think we should remove it entirely, and if not that, it definitely needs a lot of work. --] 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==An observation== | |||
| In version of this page, it is possible for a casual reader to get most of the way through the article without realizing that the Moldovan and Romanian languages are basically the same thing. ] 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why did you delete my addition on Latcu? == | |||
| I do not understand why Node_ue deleted my text, for it has sources and he can read moldovan. ] 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Can he? ] 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==From Washington D.C.== | |||
| I found an interesting book: ''The Soviet Empire: a Study in Discrimination and Abuse of Power'', prepared by the Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, at the request of the Subcommitee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Commitee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, printed for the use of the Commitee on the Judiciary, Commitee Print, 89th Congress, 1st Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, 1965. Among the passages I will quote: pg. 106: | |||
| :"'''''Linguistic aggression''''' ''is'' '''''one of the foremost operational devices''''' ''used in furthering the Communist goal of Russifying the multinational Soviet state. Briefly, the Soviet political leadership seeks 1)'' '''''to break down the native linguistic structure within the various non-Russian societies''''' ''; 2) to impose the Russian language upon all sectors of Soviet life; 3) to effect a merging of all Soviet peoples based on Russian-Communist norms; and 4) ultimately to create a Communist state, totally unified and commanding the undiluted loyalties from all its citizenry whose system of values derive wholly from Communist ideology."''---]---06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :pg. 107:''"The implication of Soviet theory is clear that historically languages of the nationalities are doomed; for during the period of transition from socialism to communism measures will be taken, and indeed have already been taken, to accelerate the process of merging the multinational Soviet state into one nation based on the Russian language and Russian culture. Khrushchev made this point fairly clear in his address to the 22d Party Congress when he said that national languages may be used, but their development'' '''''"must not lead to any accentuation of national barriers; on the contrary, it should lead to a coming together of nations."''''' ''Khrushcev thus reaffirmed what Soviet theoreticians have been saying for a long time.''" ---] 06:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Here, pg. 111, speaking of the situation in the North Caucasus region alone, not to mention other regions:''"In the late 1930s the Soviet regime,'' '''''pursuing its policy of linguistic fractionalization''''' ''and national discrimination,'' '''''invented 13 literary languages'''''; '''''imposed the Cyrillic alphabet;'''''..."---] 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Does it mention Romanian? --] 09:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The book is a slim report running only to 177 pages (not counting appendices and the index); the section on the Soviet linguistic policies does not appear to have a section on Romanian in Moldova; maybe I will write to them and ask them for literature on the matter. ] 09:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In Appendix A of course it lists Moldovans as an ethnic group speaking Romanian (pg. 179). ] 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:27, 1 December 2008
Redirect to: