Talk:Official status of Romanian language in Vojvodina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serbia Portal Official status of Romanian language in Vojvodina is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Stop this move war

This is a talk page, you know. Now, Danutz, Panonian please express your concerns here. I protected this article from moving and I'll lift the protection as soon as you reach an agreement... Duja► 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But why was the page protected here? Isn't that POV? Why was this page not protected at Romanian-speaking Vojvodina, because that was the original title before the move wars? And also I don't see why this page was protected by an Serbian national (who is obviosly POV) and not by a not related user. Maybe you'll find Romanian-speaking Vojvodina as POV, but I don't see any POV at Romanian-speaking regions of Vojvodina, or more correct Romanian-speaking areas of Vojvodina. That is a fair title, because the article primarly is more like an geography article, or at least I intended it so, but I was not allowed to continue it because of the moving wars. How come articles can be moved while users edit them? --Danutz 11:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it happened to be the last title before you attempted the copy-paste move. Duja► 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very convinious, ha? And now I'm sure PANONIAN will not take part in this discussion, and the article will remain here. The article is also ment for the category Category:Romanian-speaking countries and territories, because I was not allowed by POV users to include Vojvodina in this category. I said ok, no problem, maybe i was to POV, but I donnot see why not creating an article to refer to the areas where Romanian is spoken. You assert by that that Vojvodina is an Serbian-only speaking teritory. --Danutz 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you failed in the attempt to include Vojvodina in the category, and you made a WP:POVFORK under a POV title of 0 Ghits which would ostensibly satisfy the criterion? Duja► 11:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And, btw, what's wrong with merging this article and Romanians in Serbia under whatever title? Together, they would make a comprehensive article. I fail to see the contrast between Romanian language and Romanians in Serbia. Duja► 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian language is spoken less than the number of Romanians. This article only reffers to the use of Romanian language and no to politics of Romanians. You think it is a POV title, and that is your opinion. In my opinion it is not. Also, like I said, this article was also created to avoid POV concern by including Vojvodina in Category:Romanian-speaking countries and territories. So, do you agree with the use of Romanian-speaking areas of Vojvodina? I find this largely NPOV as Romanian is spoken and official in Vojvodina, as the article prooves. --Danutz 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"This article only reffers to the use of Romanian language and no to politics of Romanians." Now, why? The only significant difference is that it extensively (and largely unnecessarily) cites the official documents. What's the plausible reason to split it from the article on Romanians? (APART to be able to include it into the category that you created). Duja► 12:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When I meant politics i reffered to parties of Romanians (CNMR, Alianţa Românilor din Voivodina). Other differences reffers to traditions, culture (apart from literature that reffers to the Romanian language). Romanian language is not always spoken by Romanians, as is the case of Serbians for example. In the census in Moldova only 13% of the Romanian-speaking population declared themselves as Romanians. In Israel, 5% of the Hebrew population speaks Romanian and an additional procesnt represents Romanians that speak Romanian. Also in Serbia you make a segregation between Vlachs and Romanians. On the other hand, there the article name "Romanian-speaking areas of Serbia" reffers to geography (geography where the rights are available, that's why we have two maps in the article and references to the localities) as does for example German speaking part of Switzerland.

German speaking part of Switzerland is a false analogy. Switzerland is semi-officially divided into three/four regions of distinct official language. The only similar example is Belgium, with Flemish Region and Walloon Region, both with officialdom. In Vojvodina, Romanian villages are interspersed with Serbian villages, or ethically mixed entirely, like Banatsko Novo Selo: there's no such thing as "Serbian-speaking Vojvodina" or "Romanian-speaking Banat". Although there are Serbs in Romania, they don't claim "Serbian-speaking Romania". Duja► 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The list of documents does not reffer at all to politics of Romanians, just to politics of Vojvodina, and their presence is just to show their translation in the Romanian language.

I just meant to say that "Official use of the Romanian language" is a bit legalese and boring, but that's fixable. But I still didn't hear a good reason why is this not mergeable with Romanians of Serbia, except for highly artificial reasons. You cannot make up a scope of an article as you're pleased: "oh, but I wanted just to make an article about language"... "no, I'm talking only about geography"... and there are "Media" and "Religion" sections. Why, essentialy, this article was created except to prove a point? Duja► 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What point should it prove? Yes but media and religion refer to also to the media available for that specific ragion and to the eparchy of Varset that compromises the same geographical region. --Danutz 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point that you desperately want to include (parts of) Serbia/Vojvodina into Category:Romanian-speaking_countries_and_territories, for reasons that escape me. As far as I can tell, ~95% of all Romanians in Serbia (excluding Vlachs) are concentrated in South Banat District and Central Banat District, so I can't buy any argument that "Romanian-speaking area in Vojvodina" and Romanians in Serbia don't coincide. Duja► 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic question is: what are "Romanian- speaking regions of Vojvodina"? The answer is: such thing does not exist. There is no single region in Vojvodina that is predominantly Romanian speaking. There are only villages that are predominantly Romanian speaking, but not regions. Also, the area that you described here as "Romanian-speaking regions" is predominantly Serbian-speaking and therefore, there is no single scientific reason for usage of term "Romanian- speaking regions". Regarding the article as a whole, I believe that it could be good article that speak about usage of Romanian language in Vojvodina (of course, after certain copyediting), and the first thing that one good article should have is an NPOV and CORRECT title. So, Danutz, please say what is wrong with the title "Official status of Romanian language in Vojvodina"? Is it POV or incorrect by your opinion or what? Second, this article cannot be geographical one because such geographical entity that you tend to describe simply does not exist (and Wikipedia do not tolerate articles about non-existing things). Therefore, only two solutions are possible: 1. either we should create an good article about usage of Romanian language in Vojvodina or about ethnic Romanians in Vojvodina (you choose what ever you want of these two), or 2. either we should delete article that speak about non-existing geographical unit. Also, you cannot compare this article with article German speaking part of Switzerland because most of Switzerland is indeed German-speaking, while in Vojvodina, you have only several Romanian villages that are surounded by Serb cities and Serb villages, therefore if you speak about this whole area (counting both, Romanian and Serb settlements, i.e. the area that you showed on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Romani_Voivodina.png), this area is clearly predominantly Serbian-speaking. PANONIAN 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just merge the articles. We have two okay-ish articles essentially covering the same topic. If merged they could quickly grow into a pretty good and comprehensive article. I can't really see any reasons not to merge them.--Hadžija 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what is the problem with the term Romanian-speaking areas of Vojvodina, outside your POV. You amaze me with your arguments, you can tell you are Serbians. Ask yourself would you be very surprised if you would see an article like Serbian-speaking areas of Banat? Would you assert Serbian is the national language of Romania? And would you even think Serbian is the primary language of Banat. Just the contrary. Anyway I don't agree with merging, primarly the article is about the language, and the other article is about the people and refers to hole Serbia. PANNONIAN, btw, the image you moved up (i don't know why, i also don't know with wich rights you edit a protected page, but like I said, you are Serbian) depicts the territories where Romanian is official, as per the legend. The areas that are predominantly Romanian-speaking are painted in red in the first map. I also saw you modified the names of the municipalities, you forgot Romanian tiles are also official, but there is no problem, you are Serbian. I wonder who still endures you, because after 90 all abandoned you. --Danutz

I don't really understand what is the problem with the term Romanian-speaking areas of Vojvodina, outside your POV.

As you were told, there's no such thing as "Romanian-speaking areas of Vojvodina". It implies that there are areas in Vojvodina where Romanian is predominandly spoken. There are not.

You amaze me with your arguments, you can tell you are Serbians.

WP:NPA

Ask yourself would you be very surprised if you would see an article like Serbian-speaking areas of Banat?

Yes. There are no "areas". There are villages and people therein. According to that logic, we should also create an article on "English-speaking areas of Serbia", which would include American, British and Australian embasies, homes of the ambassadors and staff, British Council building etc.

Would you assert Serbian is the national language of Romania?

No.

And would you even think Serbian is the primary language of Banat. Just the contrary.

Banat is a large area divided among three countries, so the question is moot. No one asserted anything like that, anyway.

Anyway I don't agree with merging, primarly the article is about the language, and the other article is about the people and refers to hole Serbia.

As noted above, all Romanians in Serbia are concentrated in the said region. You still fail to explain why an article about the use of Romanian language in Serbia, which is spoken by, who else than, Romanians in Serbia, and makes an integral part of their culture and human rights, should be split from the article about said Romanians in Serbia.

PANNONIAN, btw, the image you moved up (i don't know why, i also don't know with wich rights you edit a protected page, but like I said, you are Serbian) depicts the territories where Romanian is official, as per the legend. The areas that are predominantly Romanian-speaking are painted in red in the first map.

I don't have a (particular) problem with the map. And WP:NPA. The page is not protected from editing, just from moving.

I also saw you modified the names of the municipalities, you forgot Romanian tiles are also official, but there is no problem, you are Serbian.

This is an English encyclopedia , and the said names are not known in English by their Romanian names. I don't have a problem if they're parentesized.

I wonder who still endures you, because after 90 all abandoned you.

WP:NPA #3

Duja► 09:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian is also spoken by the Vlach population. How come there are no Romanian-speaking areas in Serbia? As there are in Romania Serbian-speaking areas, Hungarian-speaking areas and so on. Americans donnot form a national minority, but i really begin to think, you cannot do more than that. Hehehehe. WP:NPA? I don't think I'm prohibited to make personal attacks, maybe I'm recommended not to do so. --Danutz

Well, the recommendations can certainly become impositions... Duja► 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'll cry because I was blocked on Wikipedia. Should i throw myself from the block? :)))) BTW, I mean prohibited by law... not by the policy. --Danutz

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:11120.jpg

Image:11120.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Constitution

The old Constitution of the Republic of Serbia is no more. A new one has been adopted, a long time ago. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)