Talk:Moldavia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Moldavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

As this article concerns the medieval principality, shouldn't this be listed as Principality of Moldavia instead of Principality of Moldova? Although the present-day region is increasingly referred to by the Romanian name, the historical principality is usually referred to as Moldavia in English, especially in textbooks. Olessi 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article should simply be Moldavia. Britannica article is called such, BTW. See also, Talk:Republic_of_Moldova#.22Moldova_.28Republic_of.29.22. --Irpen 07:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with simply "Moldavia" is that it is sometimes used for the Republic of Moldova, too. bogdan | ^Talk 07:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Usually when I see the region being discussed in English sources, Moldavia is used in a historical sense (along with Wallachia), while Moldova refers to the modern state. I very rarely see Moldavia used to mean the modern state. Irpen's proposed solution sounds good to me. Olessi 15:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, we will place a prominet "oseruses" link to dab on top. Should we submit this to WP:RM? --Irpen 01:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no republic of Moldavia, it is only Moldova!

I disagree with the merging, because there are two different things: this article is about the country (which usually coincided with the region, but sometimes it did not held all the region (Bugeac to Turks, then Besserabia to Russians) or sometimes it held even more than the region (it held for short periods Transnistria and Pocuţia) bogdan | ^Talk 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And Moldavia (historical region) is about what than? Or what country are you talking about? Moldova? I'me sorry but I can't see the difference you are talking about.

At a quick read, this looks like it now covers the material evenly and well (if a bit drily), but it also seems very short on citations indicating what material can be verified by what sources. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the beauty of Romanian history. TSO1D 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for most of it, the article aims to be generic and schematic, which means that much of the information is roughly equivalent with "in 1066, the Normans conquered England". Still others can be traced down in several detailed articles.

I would have liked to source it more and more on a statement-by-statement basis. This was not possible, partly because of the nasty habit alluded to by TSO1D (historians who have tortured science for several generations in a row, and who have aimed to remain vague about whatever did not have lustre), partly because of the sources I used. I've read Brătianu a while ago, and do not have his book with me (only notes which I made at the time) - his is a book that deals with an institutional development, and only alludes to other changes over time; however, in doing so, it is much more reliable than the massive works of agitprop which were the standard issue commentary on medieval history - the text uses information provided by his book when dealing with the 17th century crisis (but I cannot provide more detailed references such as chapter and page). The problem is basically the same for Vlad Georgescu's book, which is a wonderful source on late Phanariote rules and other aspects; sadly, I do not have it around. Most other books will themselves only allude to large-scale phenomena, and usually focus on minute and jingoistic details. Ştefan Ştefănescu is the major source, but his book was used in this article for all major and generally-agreed upon events of the middle ages - as such, any synthetis would have done, and I don't think it is necessary to reference a synthesis. Dahn 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful, just because it makes it clear that things are sourced, not (excuse the expression) pulled out of someone's ass. Not that for a moment I am suggesting that has happened here, it's just that a casual reader has no way to know, and no clue where they would go to see a better confirmation than an open wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am absolutely out of my senile mind or the territory of Moldavia today is split between modern states of Romania and Moldova. Can someone convince me that these recent reverts are not hatred of independent Moldova, so that its mentioning is absolutely intolerable in the introduction? `'mikkanarxi 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it always my task to explain the obvious to you, especially when the obvious is explained in the article we're debating? From a historical perspective, the territory of the former principality is divided between Moldavia - ie: the Romanian region, as most English-language references will use the term (since the Moldavian state survived in that form, more or less, between 1812 and 1859) and Bessarabia - which is in turn divided between Moldova and Ukraine. Bessarabia itself is generally itself considered a geographical and historical region of almost the same degree as Moldavia. Your behaviour is incomprehensible: the very first paragraph made the geographical notions and intricate connections between them clear to anyone who is able and willing to read; the article has maps over maps that show the Moldavian state with and without Bessarabia; the very accusation of "nationalism" that you launched into, and your claim to "fix the intro", are presumptuous and especially inflammatory coming from a person who does not understand the terms involved - hell, if I was a "Romanian nationalist", would I not be waving a flag pointing out, abusively, how Moldavia and Bessarabia and Moldova are the same thing?! You're confused, Mikkalai. I suggest you never edit on an empty stomach. Dahn 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it always my task to explain the obvious to Romanian nationalists that Moldavia is split between Romania and Moldova (and a small piece in Ukraine) therefor I wrote "approximately". If you want to add Ukraine, go ahead, but most people today don't know what the hech is Bessarabia. but they can look at the map and see Romania and Moldova (and Ukraine). `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone asked for your POV on the matter. The "small bit" of Moldavia inside Ukraine is the northern half of Bukovina and the Budjak in its entirety. It takes two sentences to establish the links and mention Bessarabia and Bukovina, as well as Moldova, because that is the exact relation between the territories, as explained by the map. Leaving aside that most recent references to Moldavia talk about the core territory of the Principality (the Romanian region), all other parts are already covered by other articles. If " most people today don't know what the hech is Bessarabia" perhaps they should click the fucking link! We're not categring to the utterly stupid, Mikkalai: we are providing an accurate picture. Dahn 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To say in the first sentence that Moldavia is a historical region of Romania and nowhere else is so plain obviously false that I simply have no other reason to explain this revert but blind nationalism. Yet another reason comes to my mind is poor comman of English, namely failing to understand the difference between "is" and "was": indeed, Moldavia was part of Romania, but not anymore. Time to learn that Romania Mare is gone, if Romania wants to join EU. Your "accurate picture" is twisted to your comfort. `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh,please, must you produce that piece of slander about me being a supporter of Greater Romania again? Let me break it down for you again, if that is ever going to be possible: Moldavia, in common reference, is the foremer principality as it was between 1812 and 1859. The rest of the regions are, respectively, Bessarabia, Bukovina, and the Budjak - in various relations with the core area. What is for sure is that they were part of Moldavia, the principlaity; what ids not so sure is that they are part of Moldavia, the region. Comprende? Or should I take out my napkin and draw it for you? (you will perhaps do me the favour of noting that this issue cannot possibly have anything to do with "Greater Romania") Dahn 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

România Mare is gone for the moment, but unfortunately, Romania will join the EU regardless of the Romanian people's aspirations toward national unity. Once that black day does arrive, on January 1, Romania will ironically be in a very good position to start recreating România Mare. Moldova is already hurtling toward union with Romania and the artificial Stalinist state border set at the Prut will in short order be dissolved (see East Germany). The lost territories currently part of the Ukraine will easily be regained when Ukraine applies for EU membership; Romania will say, à la Greece to Turkey about Cyprus: "We'll veto your membership application unless you take Transnistria and give us the Bugeac and northern Bucovina"; they doubtless will swallow their pride. As for the Cadrilater, the enlarged Romania will at that time be in a much better position to force Bulgaria into ceding it. In sum: România Mare trăieşte! Biruitorul 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Now that we told each other all nasty things we wanted, please answer me, does territory of the historical Moldavia encompass Moldova and parts of Ukraine or not? `'mikkanarxi 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As the text makes clear, as I have said fourteen times already, those parts are regions on their own (Moldova is historically part of Bessarabia - interestingly, were it not for 1812, it would not have been so). The definition of Moldavia is ambiguous, and any serious summary ought to make mention of Bukovina and Bessarabia, and only then of their respective membership to Moldavia. Bcause, in the most common reference, Moldavia=the present-day Romanian region. To aswer the specific question you posed: no. Especially since "historical Moldavia" is, first and foremost the Moldavian state, whose existance was not warranted by possession of Bessarabia (read again: 1812 to 1859). I have tried to define this ambiguity as best I could, an if you were to have read the paragraph instaid of going with your POV instinct, you'd know what I'm talking about. Dahn 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The text does not make it clear. And the article (and the whole Romanian context) is a mess. And your logic is undecipherable as well. You say: Moldova is part of Bessarabia. But Bessarabia itsef is part of the P. of Moldavia, grabbed by Russia. Hence Moldova is part of former P. of M. To add confusion, Principality of Moldavia redirects here.

So you have to define the topic of the article 100% clear: either it is

about P of M
or about the informal territory within Romania, now called Moldavia.

In the first case my version of intro goes. In the second case this article must be split into Principality of Moldavia and the article that clearly describes which exactly pieces of modern Romania are called :Moldavia". The latter one must be reshuffled:. The "Geography" section must be current geography. And what now says "historically" in it must go into the "History" section. (and other changes).

So, now, what is your choice: 1 or 2 (or other suggestion)? `'mikkanarxi 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is about both, and should stay that way. The region is, in effect, that part of the principality that was always in the principality - the rest is dealt with in separate articles. Dahn 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It cannot be about both. It will be a mess. There should be a clean-cut article about Principality of Moldavia, begin-end, from "created" to "united". A well-defined political entity. It is also quite natural to have an article that kept track of Moldavian lands within Romania. Also a well-defined context. To mix them both in one barrel is to create an unnecessary confusion. The fact that "Moldova was part of Bessarabia" does not eliminate the historical legacy of Moldova from Principality of Moldavia. `'mikkanarxi 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanian region, Dahn, would be not Moldavia but Moldova and you know that full well. There is every reason for Moldova (region of Romania) article to exist, but such article is not there. Toobad. Maybe consider wriring one. Moldavia may refer to one of two things: 1) a principality, 2) a historic region in Eastern Europe roughly based on the historic territories of the principality. IMO, it is OK to have a single article covering both under the Moldavia name, this is how EB does it too. Moldova article is still about the country and Moldova (region of Romania) would be a separate article. However, there is no such region of Romania called Moldavia and please seize reinserting the extra definition to the intro. Moldavia is either a historic region or a principality. --Irpen 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A few comments.

1. Mikka: given that you have made some ad hominem remarks here about Dahn, I'm going to respond to those first. It is absolutely absurd to portray Dahn as some sort of Romanian arch-nationalist. I can't think of any Romanian editor who has done more to make sure that we present a balanced, rounded picture of Romania. He and I probably have several hundred articles we've worked on together, and I've never seen a peep of irrendentism or nostalgia for Greater Romania from him. (To which I should add: …and Biruitorul keeps his to the discussion pages, and I've never seen him make an edit to an article that was inappropriate in this respect.)

2. All: There is an enormous vocabulary difficulty here. There just isn't a good, consistent set of terms for these places that works at all points in history, not even in Romanian and certainly not in English. In English, from what I can tell, Moldova today consistently means the territory of the Republic (sometimes including Transnistria, sometimes not). The former principality is consistently Moldavia. Other than that, it is up for grabs. I've seen Moldavia used (at one extreme) to refer to all of the territory of the former principality, and at the other extreme to refer only to the portions of that principality that remain inside present-day Romania. Irpen, I've never in an English-language context seen Moldova used to refer to the latter, as your comment suggests: can you cite a use of this in something by a knowledgable native English-speaker?

You'd be surprised how much currency Bessarabia still has in English, partly because of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated to the English-speaking world while the term was still current. And, of course, that is the post-1812 Bessarabia, which is considerably farther north than the earlier Bessarabia (which, I believe, was more or less the same as Budjak).

3. We need an article on the region, and I think that it makes perfect sense that it also be our overview article about the principality. I think that to sort out the history, we need a series of maps. We can quite legitimately have a single article that covers "Moldavia", with its shifting borders through history, just as we can have an article on Poland that starts in the Middle Ages and covers probably a dozen rather distinct entities over the centuries whose common thread was that they were states or sub-statal entities composed largely of Poles. I don't think that anyone (other than a Moldovan nationalist) would seriously suggest that the current Republic of Moldova is the sole present-day successor to the Principality of Moldavia: the notion of a Moldavia that doesn't include Iaşi is pretty silly, though one step less absurd than the Moldavian ASSR of 1924-1940).

4. That said, the present article could be a lot clearer. But, yes, I think that all of these various geographical terms (Bessarabia, Bukovina, etc.) need to be here, and their relation to one another explained. I can't think of a more appropriate article to give an overview of this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel (and Dahn), I do not consider any of you two the Romanian nationalists, so let's proceed from that. I thought that the region of Romania is called the Moldova region. Sorry for my mistake. Now, to the issue. Moldavia as a principality and Moldavia as the historic region in the SE Europe are largely interconnected, frequently called as such and may be covered in one article, as done in the EB article. The term has an extensive English usage in this sense too. However, if one wants an article about the region of Romania, this should be a different article as this is too much of a different thing that the whole principality or the region. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldavia&diff=86142861&oldid=86142614 Dahn was reverting to the text that said that "Moldavia is a geographical and historical region in north-eastern Romania". This just makes no sense and this was a problem of that reverts. --Irpen 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To jmabel: ad hominem: I had no idea who wrote the original text and I dont care who Dahn is. I was describing a superficial course of events: someone consistently removes reference to Moldova without apparent reason while keeping reference to Romania. (especially funny was logic: "no, pieces of moldavia are not in moldova, but in bessarabia, which easily reads: "there is no moldova, there is part of romania stolen by russia", no?). You yourself wrote: "enormous vocabulary difficulty here". My point exactly. Conflation of two different although related topics in a single article only contributes to this difficulty. Putting two sloppy text into one page does not help understanding. The topics are perfectly separable along the timeline. `'mikkanarxi 02:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just make note of this: Mikkalai was invited several times to actually read the text. Where he to have done so, he would have found a mention of Moldova being made, in the immediately following sentence of the first paragraph - the second sentence of the text. I have to believe that such was the case, since Mikkalai should know better about wikipedia rules on format - his verision had the word "Moldova" as a link twice in the same paragraph! Surprisingly,it was Irpen who removed reference to Moldova altogether...

"no, pieces of moldavia are not in moldova, but in bessarabia, which easily reads: "there is no moldova, there is part of romania stolen by russia", no? - terminology has this funny way of not complying to the whims of wikipedia editors. Mikkalai is contesting a version based on guesswork; Mikkalai should then take out a piece of paper and write a letter to Britannica and Columbia with this brilliant deduction - see if he gets them to change their articles on Moldavia based on what "a wikipedia user may read into them, no?". (I'm note the renewed implication that I would be an irredentist, but I simply dismiss it as trolling).

The topics are perfectly separable along the timeline. - what timeline?! The principality ceased to exist in 1859, and did not include Bessarabia or Bukovina at the time! When does one get the different timeline for Moldova to be part of the core area? Especially since, at the time, "Bessarabia" was widely in use as the preferred geographic term. Dahn 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to let be known that, after the character assassination Mikkalai was involved in, I will not be adressing him directly, and will deal only with good fath editors.

On the question of the principality vs. the region is, as indicated by Britannica, everyday references, and countless sources, moot. An article about the region of Romania would be:

-illegitimate: the principality of Moldavia, excluding at the time clearly-defined regions discussed in other articles, became part of Romania, and common reference made mention of it as a region inside Romania, as opposed to Bessarabia and Bukovina. The matter is more complicated than this for Romanian regerences, just in case anyone thinks of digging up the idea that I'm writing this from a Romanian POV.

-stubby and/or repetitive - as noted, the "region" inside Romania, which has not been sanctioned by any administrative law from the 1860s to this day, is a folklore reference to the legacy of the principality. Before 1859, it was not a "region", it was a country. What country? The Principality of Moldavia. After 1859, its history blends with that of Romania to a point where it is undistinguishible (consider that, between 1859 and 1918, it was the informal half of Romania - it would be rather absurd to start a separate article on the exact half of another article!).

-a mess to "serve" - for debatable reasons, if someone wants to go back to segragating articles (especially annoying since that person dis not express similar views when debate over this took place!), I'm williong to bet that he is not going to be around to sort the billions of articles where refernce is made to "Mikkalai Moldavia" or "the rest of the world Moldavia".

Reluctantly, I agree with the current "in South-East Europe" formulation; that is to say, I'd disagree, but there are versions I'd object to more. Dahn 03:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a proposal to make, and it lies in the table below, albeit in embryonic form. Clearly, there's a lot of somewhat overlapping terminology floating around here that even confuses experts like us, and much more so the novice reader. The idea is to key each one of these concepts to a particular map (or maps, as some of these entities were not stable). Is this idea, in refined form, a workable one? Biruitorul 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

File:بوغدن.png

+some borders

More information English, Romanian ...

English	Romanian	Russian
Republic of Moldova	Republica Moldova	Республика Молдова
Moldavia	Moldova	Молдавия
Bessarabia	Basarabia	Бессарабия
Principality of Moldavia	Moldova/Ţara Moldovei	Молдавское княжество
Moldavian SSR/Moldavia	RSS Moldovenească	Молдавская ССР

Close

Certain highly educated editors even don't bother to read EB they are poking me with. The EB article about Moldavia says in plain black letters: "In 1918 those portions of historic Moldavia east of the Prut River threw off Russian rule and joined Romania." And what this "east of the Prut River" might be?... `'mikkanarxi 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the first map in the article, the black line is the Prut River. The territories east to its east and in gold are the ones that joined Romania in 1918. Biruitorul 07:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And the modern names of the lands in this territory are?... `'mikkanarxi 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The "names are" one: Bessarabia. Of which Moldova is a section. Dahn 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you thank you, stupid me. So, according to EB, the historic region of Moldavia covers not only Romania, but Moldova as well. quod erat demonstrandum. `'mikkanarxi 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The principality has. Were it not for the entry of the word "Bessarabia" into the vocabulary, you would perhaps be right. But Moldavia includes Moldova only to te measure where it includes Bessarabia. Your theory on word popularity is of no interest here or anywhere. Dahn 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bessarabia is in vocabulary, but not on the modern map of Europe. Your theory that Moldova doesn't have right to be mentioned without Bessarabia even in moredn times is of no interest here or anywhere. `'mikkanarxi 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What Mikkalai pretends not to notice here is that Moldavia itself is historical terminology; in that context, any professional, qualified, intelligent source will tell you that Moldova is a part of Bessarabia, and Bessarabia itself is a part of Moldavia in its most extended version. That is to say that, in its history (which is the purpose of this article), Moldova is nothing to Moldavia without clear and adequate mention of Bessarabia. Dahn 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nice map. Thanks, Anonimu. I think with some fine-tuned labelling, it will clear up a lot of confusion. Biruitorul 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions about maps:

The map here is very useful and should be added to the article.
The map at the start of the article should should the present day territory of Moldova as well as that of Romania.

- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you use names in English translated from Russian?

English: Republic of Moldova - Moldova - Basarabia

Romanian: Republica Moldova - Moldova - Basarabia

Russian: Республика Молдова - Молдова/Молдавия - Бессарабия

PLEASE CHANGE THIS ERROR.

This article is missing citations and footnotes. To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines and to conform to policies regarding neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability, please provide appropriate inline citations and/or footnotes. When this has been significantly complished, the {{citations missing}} should be removed from the article. For more information about footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use. --Alcohol120 12:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Stephen did not capture Khotyn; he won a diplomatic victory in regaining it.

2. The text is misleading. It was not because of Khotyn that he gained Ciceu and Cetatea de Balta. Matthias gave him the two enclaves after he lost Chilia and Cetatea Alba.

3. Stephen annexed Pokuttya from Poland, so I'm not sure why that part was removed. If the name was misspelled, then that could've easily been fixed.

--Thus Spake Anittas 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Then we could go with "took". 2. It is not implied that it was "because". 3. Pokuttya is mentioned to death in the previous paragraphs. Let me stress that this is a brief overview: readers can find details in each of the linked articles, so let's not flood this with stuff. Dahn 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why mention that he extended his rule to Ciceu and Cetatea de Balta? Those two are not more significant than him taking over Pukuttya; and if Pokuttya is "mentioned to death" in other paragraphs, then perhaps this subject should be mentioned in just one paragraph. I agree that the whole article is a mess, tho. There are very few sources—in fact, someone decided to include part of my text from another article, but leaving the sources out. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning that the status of Pokuttya is mentioned at its proper place in the text. I consider it rather redundant to state it again, whereas the Transylvanian fief is mentioned there for the first time. I based this text on sources (specified), I just didn't bother to create a reference system (I didn't think it was necessary, and I was most likely wrong - this is why I out more work into Wallachia). Oh, and I would consider "a mess" not this version, but the one before I started editing it. Dahn 17:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The information about the HAHAH of the name Moldavia is totally inacurate. First of all there was not any german miners in Moldavia since there was only salt mines and the extraction was performed by local people long before somebody knew something about the germans.The salt was exchanged for silver lingots from which the thraco-geto-dacian people made coins for their own needs and for the exportation as far as to Olbia city on Thanais river(actually named Don).The name is older than the existence of the germans in Europe.The origin of the name is thraco-geto-dacian and is formed from two words: MOL and DOVA or DAVA. MOL=MILL and DOVA(DAVA)=CITY.

Constantin George Canada

i noticed the town of Mold near Deva(from river Dee ?) in Britania 400 AD. i know there were dacian(dacorum) and iazygian(sarmatarum iassorum) legionaries stationed in that area. can Mold be a dacian/iazygian/sarmatian word ? ... I am thinking of the name of city Iasi(Iassi) in Moldova coming from the name of Iazygians/Iassorum/Uzes http://www.icc.ro/county/county.html (Iasi City Council) ... and the autonomous republic of Mordovia http:// www.hunmagyar.org/mordvin/mordvin.html in Russia ... can there be a Iazygian connection to the name of Moldova/Moldavia ? - criztu

There is no connection to Mordovia or to the Mordvins. Alexander 007 10:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The name of the Welsh town of Mold (near Deva (Victrix), i.e. Chester) is from the Norman-French "mont-hault" (high hill). – Picapica 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put down a list of heads of state on the president of transnistria page. Would you say its accurate? im not sure of the early constitution and im getting conflicting reports over who lead the supreme soviet.. how does this sound? i think there is an error:

1 Different sources list him as "Provisional" Chairman of Supreme Soviet and Igor Smirnov as Chairman at same time. 2 Was imprisioned from August 29, 1991 until October 1, 1991. Andrey Panteleyevich Manoylov was acting Chairman of Supreme Soviet.

Vital Component 3/16/07

The name of this article is not correctly. "Moldovia" (Молдавия) is a Slavicised (in russian) name used by the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldovia.

"It is not used either by the Republic of Moldova or by Romania to describe the region of Moldova. It's not even very commonly used in English, I'm pretty sure that any English language article would use the Romanian spelling."

It's like use Frantzia (for France) or Velikobritania (for UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.26.163.26 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt this page be merged with Moldova ? --Piotrus 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Moldova used to be a region of Romania, including on both banks of the Prut river, but in the 1940s, USSR occupied the eastern part and named it the "Moldavian Socialist Republic" and Romania kept the western part. Nowadays, Republic of Moldova got its independence, but most of them don't want to reunite with Romania. (Soviet brainwashing :-), while Romanians want to unite with Republic of Moldova.

Anyway, to make a long story short, Moldavia is the whole region, while Moldova is only the eastern half. In Romanian, their both called Moldova, so we have them in articles ro:Moldova and ro:Republica Moldova Bogdan | Talk 16:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find the name of this article very odd. Moldovia is a Slavicised name used by the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldovia. It is not used either by the Republic of Moldova or by Romania to describe the region of Moldova. It's not even very commonly used in English, I'm pretty sure that any English language article would use the Romanian spelling. GordyB 10:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear what is shown in the map. Is it the principality of Moldavia? If so, at which time? What are the districts in the map? BTW, it would be useful if the borders of today's Republic of Moldova were were shown in the map, e.g. with a thick black line

These are the borders and counties of 1918 - 1944 Romania, which is roughly the medieval Moldavia. (back then, before nationalism, the borders weren't very stable and generally, the ethnic borders were the borders of the states) And the ethnic borders were not very precise.

If I read the caption correctly, the yellow portion is all of the area historically known as Moldavia, including the portion outside the borders of modern Romania.

Exactly.

It would be useful, IMO, to put the borders of Romania within the yellow.

Fixed. :)

Unless, of course, this would be terrible national insult to Romanian (and/or Moldovan) pride Dukeofomnium 16:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that would insult any Romanians. Romanians would agree an unification with Moldova, it's the Moldovans that don't want one. Bogdan | Talk 16:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the union between Romania and Moldova is ofcourse a very complicated issue, not so Romanians would agree an unification with Moldova, it's the Moldovans that don't want one – criztu

Not so? This conclusion can be found in every poll made in the last 10 years in Romania and Moldova. Bogdan | Talk 18:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to discredit or fight you Bogdan, you know the issue of Bukovina, Bugeac and Bessarabia goes beyond the polls made in Romania and Moldova in the last 10 years – criztu

Of course, of course. I was just pointing out why currently Romania and Republica Moldova are not one country. Bogdan | Talk 19:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, Romania can't unite with Romania right now, cuz Bukovina and Bugeac, parts of historical Moldova/Moldavia are curently under Ucrainian administration, and uniting without Bukovina and Bugeac isn't a desirable solution (can you give me a reference/link to a Poll on the Unification of Republica Moldova with Romania ? i couldn't find one) – criztu

There have been many in the Romanian press. No, I don't have a link, but you can guess the polical preferences of Moldovans from the polical party that won the last elections: the 'românofobi' communists.

I don't think that the Romanian-Moldovan union is not desired because of the historical lands under Ukrainian administration. I think it has more to do with EU integration and a better economy on the Romanian part and the communist rule in Moldova on the Moldovan part. The union with the territories in Ukraine is almost out of the question as the Helsinki Treaty of 1975 is against modifing borders and secondly because, sadly, Romanians are very few in those palces: 20% in Cernauti region and 13% in Bugeac. Even if a referendum would be organized it is very unlikely that the remaining 80% and 87% in those regions would vote for a union with Romania.

Domnu Goie 00:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be accepted that the loss of territory to the Ukraine is irreversible. Likewise the independence of Moldavia should be respected. Nationalist irredentism is a dangerous game to play, especially in a region where its fruit has been so bitter (collaboration with the Nazis, extermination of the Jews, supression of Slavs etc). Booshank 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Should it also be mentioned that Moldavia was a fictional principality on Dynasty? Mike H 23:57, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The names "Moldavia" and "Moldova" descend from the old German "Molde", meaning "open-pit mine", reflective of a strong early presence of imported German miners and a once-vital mining industry.

I removed this paragraph, since it's just one of the many theories regarding the name of "Moldova" and generally it is considered that we don't know exactly the origin of the name Bogdan | Talk 14:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why you use names in English translated from Russian?

English: Republic of Moldova - Moldova - Basarabia

Romanian: Republica Moldova - Moldova - Basarabia

Russian: Республика Молдова - Молдова/Молдавия - Бессарабия

PLEASE CHANGE THIS ERROR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.26.163.26 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And also please rate this article ! I think it must be rated at least as a Start-Class former country article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalinfocsa (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the recent modifications, because: - this article is, and must be, the main wikipedia article for The Principality of Moldavia, as a former state. So, I'm trying to integrate this article in the standards for the Former States articles. - There are more different entities: There is the principality, which existed between 1346 (disputable) and 1862 (when its union with Wallachia was oficially recognised unde thre name of Romania), than there is the historical, ethnographical, etc. region, which indeed is a legacy, not something palpable (and if we write about this, we write it as a final chapter of this article), there are also the other former independens or autonomous states that inherited Moldavia's legacy in a way or another (in 1917-1918, 1924-1940, after 1945), and finally there is the actual independent state of "the Republic of Moldova". - the first parts of the article were about the region, and so I removed all contemporaneous context, in order to have a coherent article: we will write here nothing but ideas related with the topic> the principality. Therefore, also its history will begin with its foundation, and the history of the lands that it covered, before its foundation, must be found in the history articles of those nowadays lands: Romania, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

Also, please contribute at the improvement of this article by completting the Former State Template, and the other sections ! You are welcomed ! Madalinfocsa (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For DAHN: Man, you also reverted my work without discussing it. I posted here the reasons for my modifications, what should I do now ??? I'm not a vandal ! Madalinfocsa (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More information Years, English ...

Years	English	Moldavian	Russian	German	French	Spanish	Italian	Latin
1991-now	Republic of Moldova/Moldavia - Moldavian/Moldovan - Moldavian/Moldovan	Republica Moldova/Moldova - moldovenesc - Moldovean	Республика Молдова/Молдавия - молдавский - Молдаванин	Republik Moldawien/Moldawien - moldawisch/moldauisch - Moldawier/Moldauer	République de Moldavie/Moldavie - moldave - Moldave	República de Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	Repubblica di Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	Res Publica Moldavica - moldavo - Moldavo
1940-1991	Moldavian SSR/Moldavia - Moldavian - Moldavian	RSS Moldovenească/Moldova - moldovenesc - Moldovean	Молдавская ССР/Молдавия - молдавский - Молдаванин	Moldawische SSR/Moldauische SSR/Moldawien - moldawisch - Moldawier	RSS de Moldavie/Moldavie - moldave - Moldave	RSS de Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	RSSd di Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	Moldavica Sovietica Socialistica Res Publica/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo
1924-1940	Moldavian ASSR/Moldavia - Moldavian - Moldavian	RASS Moldovenească/Moldova - moldovenesc - Moldovean	Молдавская AССР/Молдавия - молдавский - Молдаванин	Moldawische ASSR/Moldauische ASSR/Moldawien - moldawisch - Moldawier	RSSA de Moldavie/Moldavie - moldave - Moldave	RSSA de Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	RSSA di Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo
1917-1918	Moldavian Democratic Republic - Moldavian - Moldavian	Republica Democratică Moldovenească - moldovenesc - Moldovean	Молдавская Демократическая Республика/Молдавия - молдавский - Молдаванин	Moldawische demokratische Republik/Moldawien - moldawisch - Moldawier	RSSA de Moldavie/Moldavie - moldave - Moldave	República democrática de Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo	Repubblica democratica di Moldavia/Moldavia - moldavo - Moldavo
	Moldavia	Moldova	Молдавия
	Bessarabia	Basarabia	Бессарабия
	Principality of Moldavia	Moldova/Ţara Moldovei	Молдавское княжество

Close

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support a move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to Principality of Moldavia, as that's what first of all the sources presented in the articles a sthe article itself are speaking of, secodnly it's all logical as the article is namely about the precise historical political statal formation of Moldavia - Principality of Moldavia. --Moldopodo^talk 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed rename. The article is about the principality and about the historical region in general and it is the result of a merge of the Principality article to the article on the historical region in general and then a move to the present title. General English usage reserves "Moldavia" for the principality and the traditional region that includes parts of Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, exatly how it's used in this article. The current state, which includes areas beond the Dniester not part of traditional Moldavia is almost exclusively referred to as "Moldova." Examples of this usage outside of Wikipedia can be found at:

Britannica:

Moldova: "Republic of Moldova..., formerly...Moldavia... [a] country lying in the northeastern corner of the Balkan region."
Moldavia: "[a] principality on the lower Danube River that joined Walachia to form the nation of Romania in 1859."

Encarta:

"Moldova, republic in southeastern Europe. In Moldovan, the state language, the country’s official name is Republica Moldova."
"Moldavia (Romanian Moldova), former principality, located in southeastern Europe in what is now Romania, Ukraine, and Moldova."

As can be seen, there is no serious ambiguity and no need for the move. But if the move is executed, what is the proposed target of Moldavia? Moldova? Moldova (disambiguation)? A new disambiguation page? – AjaxSmack 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - no need to disambiguate here; there's only one Moldavia to speak of, with the independent republic being called Moldova. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose it would just be a move toward redundancy. Dahn (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support as it was stated previously, the present version of the article is a result of renaming and merging of numerous different articles: 1) Principality of Moldavia, 2) a region called Moldavia in Romania, and 3) ... I don't remember what it was... (those who know, you are welcome to fill in this gap). Anyway, the point being is that we cannot have two different articles merged like Principality of Moldavia and region Moldavia in Romania. What is this region? Does it have a legally set framework somewhere in Romanian Constitution, or is it another Wikipedian invention? --Moldopodo^talk 11:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, how come if Moldavia today on English Wikipedia redirects to the merged article Principality of Moldavia (combined with former article Moldavia (Romanian geographical? region) and something else, contrary to other Wikipedias by the way, where they redirect to the present Moldavia (Republic of Moldova) , these people managed to go to Moldavia in 1997 and write an article in English about it?--Moldopodo^talk 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The curret cotents of the article correspnds to the contents of an article about the Principality of Moldavia, besides it is suprisingly absurd to title an article about a fomer statal political formation with precise name Principality of Moldavia, with a different one, which moreover pertains to the actual existing formation Republic of Moldova, the heir of Moldavian Democratic Republic, Moldavian ASSR, Moldavian SSR. Also, have a look at other language versions of Wikipedia of the same and other above cited respective articles.--Moldopodo^talk 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For

Votes

--Moldopodo^talk 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Slight support. The extensive use of "Moldavia" to refer to the MSSR (such an in the results of this GBook search) guarantees a disambig page at Moldavia.Xasha (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Against

Votes

This is easy enough. I can just cut and paste from the previous request from 1 ½ months ago since nothing appears to have changed. Oppose the proposed rename. The article is about the principality and about the historical region in general and it is the result of a merge of the Principality article to the article on the historical region in general and then a move to the present title. General English usage reserves "Moldavia" for the principality and the traditional region that includes parts of Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, exatly how it's used in this article. The current state, which includes areas beond the Dniester not part of traditional Moldavia is almost exclusively referred to as "Moldova." Examples of this usage outside of Wikipedia can be found at:
Britannica:
- Moldova: "Republic of Moldova..., formerly...Moldavia... [a] country lying in the northeastern corner of the Balkan region."
- Moldavia: "[a] principality on the lower Danube River that joined Walachia to form the nation of Romania in 1859."
Encarta:
- "Moldova, republic in southeastern Europe. In Moldovan, the state language, the country’s official name is Republica Moldova."
- "Moldavia (Romanian Moldova), former principality, located in southeastern Europe in what is now Romania, Ukraine, and Moldova."
As can be seen, there is no serious ambiguity and no need for the move. But if the move is executed, what is the proposed target of Moldavia? Moldova? Moldova (disambiguation)? A new disambiguation page? – AjaxSmack 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this rather disruptive proposal. "Moldavia" clearly refers to the principality; no ambiguity about that. The other entities have their own articles in their own respective places. No need to confuse the issue any further. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Biruitorul, please stop lying. The previous message by User talk:AjaxSmack: The article is about the principality and about the historical region in general and it is the result of a merge of the Principality article to the article on the historical region in general and then a move to the present title. clearly shows that the article does not refer to the Moldavian Principality at all. It refers to an invented concept by someone on English Wikipedia, where Moldavian Principality, Moldavia (historical region), Moldavia (modern state) are all confused all together in one article. Therefore my proposal is not disruptive, but only all logical as it is perfectly in line with plenty of sources presented above, with common logic as well. Calling my proposal as disruptive is however disruptive by itself and may be also qualified as slanderous statement or simply defamation.--Moldopodo^talk 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Resorting to personal attacks is not going to promote your cause. The charge of disruption is not IMO in itself a personal attack, rather it's fair enough when you have not answered my question below as to why this discussion should be reopened. See below. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Appears to be reopening a previous discussion with nothing new to add. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly opposeMoldavia is a geographic region. This was clearly stated in the original article until it was incorrectly modified on Jan 24, 2008 by User :MadalinFocsa. It must be understood that many political or administrative entities have taken the name of geographic units. Ireland, Coreea, Kashmir are just a few examples. The policy of Wikipedia has been to have the main article concentrated on the geographic region, which makes sense as geographic regions do not change. The same articles also include paragraphs on the history of the geographic region when it concerns the greatest part of its territory and has links to articles regarding issues regarding part of the territory. Thus, Ireland has the main article for the entire geographic region (ireland) of Ireland and then paragraphs (with links) for the history of various parts (Northern Ireland), (Republic of Ireland). In the case of Kashmir, there are even no separate articles for the separate political entities existing today, their history (except for the Indo-Pakistan conflict) being incorporated in the article. There are many other articles which show that this policy has consistenty been applied by Wikipedia. As the article discusses first of all the geographic region, the proposed move is therefore totally incorrect. Afil (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Hasn't this already been rejected once, above? What's the new argument for moving it? Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Although consensus can change, I think it's unreasonable to expect those who previously voted against the move to repeat their arguments indefinitely. A move request reopened shortly after a previous discussion was closed should say why it is being reopened, not merely repeat arguments already answered. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

From the "Phanariots (1711-1822)" section: ...such as Constantine Mavrocordatos' decision to salirize public offices... What does this word mean? I can't find it in any dictionary. 89.41.95.94 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

a Slavic etymology ("-ova" is a quite common Slavic suffix), the meaning of which is unknown. - perhaps Genova has a slavic etymology too :)) – Criztu 19:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And remember the name of the Dacian city, Pelendova. Alexander 007 10:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genoa (Генуя). Where is "ova" (ова) here? Ова/ов (ova/ov) mean "'s". Kharkov means Kharko's city.95.69.152.59 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that a certain user enjoys pushing back references to the supposed "Moldavian language", which he interprets as being the same as "Moldovan language" (the latter being a theoretical construction linked to the ideology we know as Moldovenism, and rejected by most historians). While there are references to "Moldavian" in primary sources, wikipedia does not accept an uncritical borrowing from those sources (see WP:OR and specifically WP:PSTS) and most modern historians will refer to that "language" as a dialect of Romanian or (before the 15th-16th centuries) a branch of the Balkan Romance languages which eventually contributed to the birth of Romanian. In fact, I refer you to this and this map, both contributed by a Russian user and based on recent Russian bibliography.

The rest is a variant of Moldovan protochronism. Dahn (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since 1/3 of old Moldavia is in Moldova I don't see the problem with listing the Moldovan name. Prussia has the name in every language used in its former territory, even if that territory was as insignificant compared to the whole, as Memel/Klaipeda.Xasha (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite obvious: Moldovan is not a language. Dahn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you say 2 mil inhabitants of Moldova are idiots?Xasha (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Dahn (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

.Xasha (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, I think you know very well that: a. the name of a language does not establish its "different" nature (neither explicitly not implicitly); b. the scientific verdict on what the language is is the only thing that matters on wikipedia; c. as I let you know already, the interpretation of primary sources on the nature of a thing belongs to secondary and tertiary sources, not to wikipedians. So far, whenever this issue was brought up, it became a tedious exercise to list and name all reliable secondary sources that discuss "Moldovan" as, at best, a dialect of Romanian - making the other claim fringe and unsourceable for all wikipedia cares. Political utopias of any kind cannot set the tone for wikipedia articles. Now, technically, I should be ignoring the very fabric of your argument, because it is merely an illustration of argumentum ad populum. Dahn (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an overly political matter, and Romania's POV has received a better exposure, due to the international situation in the last century, I choose to trust the majority of my conationals. Yes, the literary form of Moldovan is shared with the Romanian one (still not identical) due to Soviet policies of the 80s, every body knows it and everyboy acknowledges it, but this gallicised idiom has little to do with spoken Moldovan, and even nonpolitical literary works avoid to use it. Since the language is something stricly connected to the people, the only fallacy here would be ignoring the people.Xasha (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"I choose to trust the majority of my conationals." Stop right there, and then look over what wikipedia chooses. Dahn (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, since when its mentioned in Wikipedia, it uses reliable sources, and not what I know (i.e. not WP:OR).Xasha (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For your use of primary sources, look over to WP:SYNTH and WP:PSTS. For the prominence of the secondary sources, look over WP:V and other regulations where the introduction of fringe claims is discussed. Dahn (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fringe claim isn't the one supported by me.Xasha (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, I think you can do better than such "yo mama" replies. As long as professional sources on all sides consistently refer to Moldovan as nothing more than a dialect of Romanian, and do so in a vast majority of cases (as was shown over and over), and as long as wikipedia takes into consideration only professional assessments, we can all establish where the fringe claim is. Furthermore, the claim is fringe even when it comes to Moldovan sources. We're just going around in circles here, as whatever was needed to be said was said a long time ago. Now please. Dahn (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian language exists since Middle Ages, please check Descriptio Moldaviae, there are two chapters at the end: About Moldavian language and About Moldavian alphabet (letters). And as you know Cantemir (the author of Descriptio Moldaviae) described the Prinicpality of Moldavia, just as Cantemir described good Moldavian-Russian relations. Education of Moldavian language was institutionalised during Russian Empire with first Bukvari written in Moldavian and for teaching/learning Moldavian language in the respective Gubernya. Stating that Moldavian language exists since this (meaning 22nd or 21st) century, or Voronin (the actual President of Moldavia) invented it or something else like this by a number of Romanian users is a mere banal POV and should not merit any attention of Wikipedians.--Moldopodo^talk 11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS. Dahn (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you're interpreting primary sources written in languages you don't understand. Cantemir talks about "Moldavorum Valachorumque lingua", which translates as "the language of the Moldavians and of the Wallachians" (-orum is a genitive plural ending, -que is a Latin suffix meaning "and"). He says that "Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua", which means "The inhabitants of Wallachia and Transylvania have the same language with the Moldavians" (rough translation). Nowhere he claims that Moldavian and Romanian (Wallachian/Transylvanian) are two different languages. bogdan (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, be civil, I perfectly understand the article, especially the titles of two chapters Moldavian language and Moldavian letters. However, nowhere in the article the term Romanian language is used, and saying the contrary is a blatant GROSS LIE--Moldopodo^talk 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at some interesting sources Hutchinson encyclopedia about Moldavians Moldavian - Member of the majority ethnic group living in Moldova, comprising almost two-thirds of the population; also, inhabitant of the Romanian province of Moldavia. The Moldavian language is a dialect of Romanian, and belongs to the Romance group of the Indo-European family. They are mostly Orthodox Christians.
They are probably descended from the Romanized original Thracian inhabitants of the area and the Slavs. They came under Slav and Byzantine cultural influences, and until the 17th century Church Slavonic was their literary and official language; the first works in Moldavian (using the Cyrillic alphabet) date from the 16th century--Moldopodo^talk 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I note that the International Standards Organisation now states the administrative language of MOLDOVA as Moldavian: "Correction of administrative language from Romanian (ro, ron) to Moldavian (mo, mol)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.131 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This article currently has the "Redirect" hatnote indicating that Moldavians redirects here and pointing readers to Moldavians (disambiguation) for other uses. As is apparent from that page and from pages such as Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova, there is a fraught issue concerning "Moldavian" and "Moldovan" (and I imagine there's also some confusion among English-only speakers who may not clearly distinguish Moldova from Moldavia). This came up at WP:ANI in this section; there appears to have been a slow-motion edit war over several years switching the target of the Moldavians redirect between this article and Moldovans. I have suggested a hatnote here directing readers to also see Moldovans, since the term is sometimes used with that meaning. Do you agree, and can anyone figure out how to add it after the referral to the DAB page, so that the reader sees ""Moldavians" redirects here. For other uses, see Moldavians (disambiguation) and Moldovans"? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why "Moldovans" must be singled out of all Moldavians (disambiguation). Why not "Residents of Moldavian SSR"? If someone confuses the terms Moldovans and Moldavians, it happens for a reason: the distinction is purely English. In the native language both words are the same one: ro:Moldoveni (dezambiguizare). Therefore it is no harm for the (supposedly) confused reader to know the full spectrum. 20:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I would even go further and suggest to merge Moldovans (disambiguation) and Moldavians (disambiguation), but I am sure someone would want to split hairs and argue they are a tad not very exactly the same. -M.Altenmann >t 20:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think given the political disagreements and the fact they are different words in English, the two should remain separate DAB pages. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is completely different topics: Moldova (historical region) and Principality of Moldova. In all others wikipedias there are different pages: and . And in Romanian language also: ro:Moldova și ro:Principatul Moldovei. (Moreover in Romanian language exist also article about West Moldova that belongs to Romania: ro:Moldova Occidentală, I will translate it soon to English.) I created an article about region - but User:Biruitorul told me that I should first discuss it here. --Holopoman (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone agree? @Biruitorul: I wait a little more, and then I will separate articles. --Holopoman (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The current article is clearly centered on the Principality rather than on the region (only some paragraphs in the Population section are not directly related to the Principality). However, considering we already have articles covering the "non-principality" history, geography, population, economy, etc of more than half of the region (I.e. Bessarabia and Bukovina), the only area not presently covered is the one part of Romania. Thus, the only sensible article that would bring encyclopedic value, without duplicating content, would be one about Moldova (region of Romania). Of course, you'll have to prove that such content is not better placed in articles regarding the whole of Romania, and the public perception that Moldova has some specific characteristics not generally shared with the rest of Romania is also reflected by sources (to the best of my knowledge, Romanian works strived to present the whole country as an unit, but the Rowiki article about the region seems to indicate that you may have a chance). On the other hand, if you just want to create yet another article about the region defined by the historical principality, by copying existing content, I have to agree with Biruitorul about the inappropriateness of such an article.Anonimu (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will do as you recommend me. --Holopoman (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Principality of Moldavia and Moldavia should be under the same article, as a geographic and historical (principality) region; there is no reason to split this article (the content would be similar). On the other hand, there is no need of any other "western/eastern/southern ... Moldavia" article (it would make everything too complicated, let's keep the topic as simple (understandable) as it can be, here, on English Wikipedia). Thanks, (Rgvis (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC))

I agree with Holopoman, Moldavia the Historical Region is very different than Moldavia the Principality, a governing body that fluctuates its entity, I don't think the region and the principality was constant. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Independence was from 1359 under Bogdan the Founder, therefor the year of establishment should be 1359 not 1346, when Bogdan expelled Dragosh. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Moldavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20060616225750/http://www.vikingart.com/VArt/PS_Sjonhem.htm to http://www.vikingart.com/VArt/PS_Sjonhem.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.patzinakia.ro/wallachiamediaevalis/bacau-index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111120813/http://www.patzinakia.ro/ to http://www.patzinakia.ro/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222082415/http://www.patzinakia.ro/documenta/index.htm to http://www.patzinakia.ro/documenta/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111120813/http://www.patzinakia.ro/ to http://www.patzinakia.ro/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moldavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127183235/http://rentmoldova.com/history-of-moldova/where-did-name-moldova.html to http://rentmoldova.com/history-of-moldova/where-did-name-moldova.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moldavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The whole structure of the article is built around anything BUT the historic moments in the history of the Principality of Moldavia. This surely proves POV, as it only pleases supporters of official Russian & Ukrainian historiography. Far beyond from being a "region" ruled by free-floating, stateless princes, it had a very well-defined character for half of a millennium! Romanian language and Orthodox Christianity were key components of its character. This doesn't contradict border fluency and Magyar, Slavic, Mongol, Turkish, Austrian, Ashkenazi, Armenian and other types of influence: no place in Europe was free of external influence. Let's get real. I might have expected this in an article on, say, Transylvania, but not here, for Ștefan's sake! ;) Arminden (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The article should be split into two different articles, one covering the geographical region and the other one convering the principality. Transylvania, for example, covers the region while there are two pages for the two principalities of Transylvania. This also happens with Silesia and Duchy of Silesia, Brittany and Duchy of Brittany or Holstein and Duchy of Holstein. Super Ψ Dro 17:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This article only has 32kB of text. A split doesn't seem like it would be beneficial to the reader. What would be the value of extending the article back and forward in time from that of the principality? CMD (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the article is not too long does not mean that two different topics can be kept in the same article. Also, the article of the principality wouldn't undergo too many changes, just the geography article, which can be expanded by other editors once splitted. Otherwise, we should merge Silesia and Duchy of Silesia and the other pages I mentioned. Oh, and Romanian Wikipedia has one page for the region and one for the principality. Super Ψ Dro 11:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing obvious in the text that supports the idea that this article currently mashes two different topics together. At any rate, there's an existing geography article at Moldavian Plateau, which uses the same header photo as the Romanian article, and could use some expansion. CMD (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Moldavian Plateau does not correspond to the region of Moldova. The last paragraph of the "Limits" section of the article says that it covers 2/3 of the former principality (which does correspond to the region), the rest being the Carpathians and the Budjak Plain (Bugeac is the name in Romanian used by the article). If an article about the geographic region was created, we could move the sections of this article "Geography", "Population" and "Culture" and expand them subsequently. A seccion about the Romanian Moldavian dialect and the other languages of the region could also be written. It is a topic with potential to be a pretty long article. Super Ψ Dro 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Geography, Population, and Culture could all be expanded within the current article, rather than cutting them to another article which would correspond to exactly the same area. CMD (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Geography definitely deserves a mention in this article, but why would we include all the geographical elements of the region in the historical principality instead of in an article that focuses entirely on geography? That is not the purpose of this article. Also, I know that I said that the principality corresponds to the region, but only for a few centuries. Moldova gained Pokuttya for a few decades and began to lose territory thereafter (when Moldavia united with Wallachia, it had less than half of its original territory). The culture and mentality of Moldavians, Bukovinians and Bassarabians began to differ, and this can still be seen today, and not until 1859, which is why we should cover current cultural differences in a new article and not here. Half of the Population section deals with the current population of the Moldavian cities, and not with the historical ones, something that shouldn't be explained here either.

I will put Silesia and the Duchy of Silesia again as examples. The articles have the following sections: the first has etymology, history (which focuses on the entire history of the region from the 4th century BC to the present day) and geography (focused on geographic elements, the different ethnicities that Silesia has had throughout history and the cities and their populations). On the other hand, Duchy of Silesia has: geography (dealing with the territorial changes of the duchy from its appearance to its dissolution), history (again speaking of the history from its establishment to its disappearance), a list of rulers and aftermath (something that this article could have but would not correspond to an article dealing with the geographical region). My point with all this is that, just like Silesia and the Duchy of Silesia, the Principality of Moldavia and the region of Moldavia are two different concepts that can be expanded. I am not saying that we should create a stub from the information here, I could expand an article about the region to a decent length, and some editors would most likely start adding more information little by little. This is not an article with few visits, after all. Super Ψ Dro 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The information mentioned is relevant to this article, and as I noted before the article is not bereft of space for this information. Neither Silesia nor Duchy of Silesia seem like very good articles, so I'm wary of using them as examples. If the entire reason the area is considered a region is because of one polity, then it doesn't feel that there is an inherent distinction of the region from the polity. (At what point do you stop declaring polities to be their own regions?)

Of course, it may be there is a distinct topic with a lot of information that would merit a split, but there's no evidence of that here. What exists could easily just be in an "Aftermath" section on this page. Information on the culture and mentality of Moldavians vs others in the area may be interesting, but it isn't something that seems to be written about on Wikipedia. Culture of Romania actually says there was a consolidation of culture after the union.

Rather than spend a lot of effort creating what would for the moment be two perhaps identical articles, I would suggest expanding this one as you could with the region. A body of sources that discuss the Moldavian region as distinct and separate from the polity would provide a great basis for a split article. CMD (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So, it would be possible to split the article if it was previously expanded? Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That would depend on the content and the sources. CMD (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I had no plans to expand this page soon, so I guess this proposal can be closed for now. Super Ψ Dro 08:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I’d agree with Chipmunkdavis that the article should be expanded first if it can, before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. The historical area and principality are closely intertwined such that WP:CONSPLIT isn’t enough on its own. Also, the fact that other articles are split doesn’t mean that this one necessarily should be split. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with spiltting. Because it is totally different one. There are many other examples such as Korea and Korean Empire, China and ROC/PRC, etc. And Chipmunkdavis, I think it is not a good reason for uniting articles because we don't have evidence. You should not criticize about that. If you have much time or effort, we can find evidence in library, internet, book or even in news. Did you ever try that? If not, and if all of the people who are in oppositon give a same reason like you, why don't we start looking resources and finding out what really happens. -- 웬디러비 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Split, for sure. Then I can extend the article about the Principality of Moldavia translation from Russian featured article. --Andronof (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No reason to split it (as per Chipmunkdavis opinion). (Rgvis (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

I think it's time to finally propose a solution. Chipmunkdavis, Andronof has expressed interest on expanding the article about the principality. I and perhaps 웬디러비 could expand a possible article about the region. We could start writing it on a sandbox before publishing it and splitting this article so you can decide if you support the change or not. If this works, we could do the same with Wallachia. I could also ping other Romanian users. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested in expanding the article, just expand the current one, rather than dividing effort between various draft pages. CMD (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That would only be unnecessary extra work. I am proposing this because I want to split the article, and as I said, Andronof said he could expand this article based on the Russian one. Also, that's the reason why I propose to write it somewhere else before making it an actual article. You can see the process and if once it is finished you don't think it is correct to split it, we can always add the written information in this article. Super Ψ Dro 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If it would be added here later, just write it here. It avoids creating two highly overlapping articles. Creating separate topics for a political entity and an area defined by that entity (eg. Kosovo (region)) has often resulted in two redundant articles, and it's not a useful process to split just to merge again later when the standard process of an article content demonstrating it should be split would work better. CMD (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that the information would be added here later. Kosovo is now a separate (and united) political entity. Any event that happens in the region will be covered in the article of the country. This is not the case of Moldavia since there is no longer any Moldavian political entity that covers the entire territory. And historical articles do not speak in detail about geography, demography or culture (examples are Kingdom of Romania, Kingdom of Bulgaria, Kingdom of Hereti, Austria-Hungary, etc). In addition, the region has more history apart from what happened between 1346 and 1859. Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You said "we can always add the written information in this article". In any case, it remains that it hasn't been demonstrated that this region has notability separate to it being the borders of a former entity, and that the new article wouldn't essentially be a WP:CFORK. The flaws in other articles aren't impediments to improving this one (some have clear demographic subsections that can be easily added to), and none of them have a sister "Region of the Kingdom of Romania" article or similar. CMD (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I said we could first write an article for the region in a sandbox and then merge it with this page if you disagreed with the final product. I repeat, the region of Moldavia has more history apart from the principality (Dacia, barbarian invasions, Tatar/Mongol rule, World War II and partition...). This page should not include those parts of history. It should not include either detailed geography since this article is about a political entity, as well as culture since it has obviously changed since the principality ceased to exist and so on. There are many pages about regions within Moldavia: Budjak, Western Moldavia, Bukovina, Hertza region, Bessarabia and Southern Bessarabia. How are these parts of Moldavia worthy of an article but the region itself is not? Super Ψ Dro 16:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Those parts of history should be covered in the articles you mention at the end. The period before the principality can be covered in the articles about the subject (Dacians, Barbarian invasions, Golden Horde) or that of the history of the various modern countries (Moldova, Romania, Ukraine), while the partition is part of the history of the principality. Detailed geography should go into the article about the sub-regions (there's nothing common geography-wise between Bukovina and Budjak). Culture after the demise of the principality is strongly linked to the culture of modern countries, covering all in a single article will probably amount to WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK.Anonimu (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree about proposal. -- Wendylove (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No reason to split. The article should be first and foremost about the historical principality, as it is the main subject linking the various territories included in the definition of the region.Anonimu (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm closing this proposal as most people oppose it. Super Ψ Dro 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

From Wikidata. Copy:
Usually, the last officially approved flag is used for illustration.

Regulamentul Organic. 1831
Wallachian and Moldavian Flags. 1849
The Paris Convention. 1858

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy that says this is true. It is common sense to use the flag most commonly associated with the principality. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are the official sources recognized by the international community: Regulamentul Organic (Constitution) and The Paris Convention. 1858. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Two-color flag of Moldavia on a map of 1848. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

→ Let's keep all the discussions in one place. Regarding this topic the location is at . Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

Why do we illustrate an article about a principality that existed before 1859 with the coat of arms of of Stephen III of Moldavia in 1457-1504? After all, there are coats of arms of the 19th century. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Because the current is the most iconic and well-known coat of arms of Moldavia. There's no rule as to what coat of arms should be used, so it's just logic to use the most famous one. Super Ψ Dro 19:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What you call "most iconic and well-known coat of arms of Moldavia" is a 19th century anachronism. While the aurochs head has long been associated with the country, the tinctures (colours) are unattested, the plain red background making an appearance only after 1866 in the combined arms of Romania.Anonimu (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar images are shown in this Romanian source: Dan Cernovodeanu, Stiinta Si Arta Heraldica În România, 1977

Fig. 6. Stema Moldovei de pe spätarul stranei domnesti (executate dupà 1821) aflat'6 in biserica mánástirii Neamt. — P. 269
Fig. 1. Stema Moldovei (gravatii de Oh. Asachi) in timpul guvernärii generalului Kisseleff (Bible Acad. R.S.R., Cab. stampe). — P. 275
Fig. 4. Stema Moldovei pe o diploma de rang din ianuarie 1856 emisă de Grigore Al. Ghica Voievod (colect. Lambrino). — P. 275
Fig. 6. Stema Moldovei pe sigiliul din 1858 al Cäimacfimiei acestui principat (Bibl. Acad. R.S.R., Cab. numism., Sigilii, nr. inv. III/111). — P. 275 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to exclude the blue and red symbols due to lack of reliable sources attesting to their use. As for the red and yellow symbols, a pure vote count would suggest that this option has consensus. However, many of the comments do not provide a policy compliant reason, for example: "Keep only the red and yellow symbols - While it might be a relatively modern symbol, it is the one most commonly used to represent Moldavia." or "Keep only the red and yellow symbols It is a good representation of Moldavia." WP:Verifiability is a policy and can't be overriden by local consensus. As pointed out during the discussion, no symbol should be presented in this article without a reliable source stating that it was used by the historical Moldavia. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we use in this article the red and yellow symbols of Moldavia , the red and blue ones , or both? Super Ψ Dro 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Keep only the red and yellow symbols. Here is my rationale. To give more detail, for some time there has been a dispute regarding which flag and coat of arms we should use in this article. Before anything happened, these had been the symbols used for years, which had never been disputed except once by a user also participating in this dispute. The red and yellow symbols are the most characteristic of the principality, they are used in the current coat of arms of Romania and many Moldovenists (nationalists of the Republic of Moldova, so to speak) use it as a symbol. There is simply no variety better known and equally representative of the principality.

However, one user, Лобачев Владимир, opposes these symbols and uses others, a red and blue flag and coat of arms. This user has been (and still is) mass replacing the red and yellow symbols for the red and blue ones on other Wikipedias (, , just to give a few examples). I never saw this symbol until then and I doubt that many other people did as well. This symbol is unknown and has no reason to replace the red and yellow flag. This user has said that we should use it because they were the last official symbols of the principality, which is not really a reason. Both pairs of symbols are accurate and well-sourced (see the discussions above), so the only sensitive solution is to use the red and yellow flags that have been in use for years and that are better known. Another participant in the dispute, Rgvis, has also been opposing the flag of Лобачев Владимир.

My opinion is clear, both pairs of symbols are correct so we must use the most widely known, the red and yellow symbols. The blue and red do not represent a substitute for these symbols in any way and keeping both does not make much sense. We would be just doing this to appease both sides of the disputes rather than to focus on improving the article's content. The blue and red flag is little known, and most importantly, it is just another of the many flags and coat of arms that Moldavia used. It would make sense to keep both flags if those were the only ones Moldavia used, which is not the case, and the red and blue symbols are not really more relevant than any of the other symbols used by Moldavia, they aren't the second-most well-known symbols of Moldavia or something like that. It's just another obscure pair of symbols the country used and it doesn't match the level of the red and yellow flags.

Here are some other relevant links for getting more context: Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia#Official coat of arms of the principality and File:Coat of arms of Moldavia.svg (the two talk page sections in which this has been discussed as far, these discussions include many relevant links to sources) User:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Rgvis (Result: ) (reports derived from this dispute). Super Ψ Dro 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Keep only the red and yellow symbols, as the horizontal red-blue flag is considered by all contemporary reliable sources as non-authentic. All the evidence (that have been preserved so far in various institutions and museums) and studies on this subject show that such a flag did not exist in reality (multiple references), being promoted only as a political agenda by certain interest groups. (Rgvis (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC))
Use actually attested symbols: black-and-white representation of the traditional arms (as appearing on coins, seals, prints, architectural details, etc) and no flag. The or aurochs over a gules field seem to be a mostly modern invention postdating the union of Wallachia and Moldavia. In the late 18th and the 19th century the gules-azure combination as representative for Moldavia has multiple attestations (Regulamentul Organic, Paris Convention, military standards of the 19th century, arms of Bukovina, personal arms of various Moldavian princes, various versions of the arms of the United Principalities and arms of Romania until 1872)Anonimu (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 4,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64, is it fixed now? Super Ψ Dro 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, see this revision, Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
1. Keep only the red and yellow symbols - While it might be a relatively modern symbol, it is the one most commonly used to represent Moldavia. Despite having a certain interest in this area, I have never seen the red and blue symbols before and have no idea why they should be used here. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
1. Keep only the red and yellow symbols It is a good representation of Moldavia. Sea Ane (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is a good as the red-blue one, considering both are modern inventions.Anonimu (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  - While the medieval flag is constantly being researched and scholars are constantly writing about it, there is virtually no scientific study of the alleged red-blue striped flag. This demonstrates the major difference in representativeness between the two flags: while the former is seen as representative of Moldavia's identity, the latter is devoid of any interest. (Rgvis (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC))
Content that cannot be Reliably Sourced should be removed. Right now, as best I can tell, neither side in this debate has provided Reliable Sourcing. (Or if they have provided Reliable Sourcing, I haven't been able to locate it amongst the worthless links.) Feel free to ping me if/when someone provides good sourcing. I tried doing a bit searching on my own but I wasn't able to dig up anything reliable, but it appears the historical record on this appears poor and there might not have been an official flag/coat-of-arms to represent the region. Alsee (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Alsee: I would recommend this link (with the flags of the Principality of Moldova on the Flags of the World, which is considered by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons a very reliable source). (Rgvis (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC))
  - CRWFlags is a user contributed mailing list. Is not any more reliable than any Wikipedia editor comment on this page.Anonimu (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    - Only if "any Wikipedia editor" would be a member of the FIAV. :) And, unlike many users' editings, crwflags meets all three principal core content policies of Wikipedia. (Rgvis (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC))
    - CRWFlag is the public facing interface to a volunteer contributed mailing list. 100% original research, no verifiability or NPOV. Do check the Wikipedia policy about WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.Anonimu (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      - On crwflags, every piece of information is well explained and sourced. In this case (Principality of Moldavia), you can find information about references at . In fact, crwflags is constantly used as a source of information in all kinds of studies and publications (including the Encyclopædia Britannica, for example).(Rgvis (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC))

Keep only the red-blue symbols.

Flag of 1500 (Stephen the Great)
Flag of 1531 (Petru Rareș)

I see two main arguments for red and yellow characters. But they can hardly be considered serious. We're not saying that the coat of arms of Lithuania 1992 or the coat of arms of Bedorussia, 1991 can be considered the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Or can the modern coat of arms of Germany be considered the coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire? The red and yellow flag does not match the 16th century historical depictions of Stephen the Great and Petru Rareș. The red-yellow coat of arms is not based on historical sources and is the author's fantasy of its author. And original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. The predominance of red in the coats of arms of the Moldavian principality is not observed in historical images. See Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia#File:Coat of arms of Moldavia.svg.

About the flag of 1832–1859. That's just in Russian-language sources.

Ru: В армиях появляются национальные флаги и оркестры. Валашский флаг состоял из желтой и красной полос, а молдавский из синей и красной.
En: National flags and bands appear in the armies. The Wallachian flag consisted of yellow and red stripes, and the Moldavian one of blue and red.

(source: Гросул В. Я. Россия и формирование национальных регулярных армий Молдавии и Валахии // Вопросы истории: ежемесячный журнал. : Nr. 5/2001)

Ru: Сине-красный флаг у Молдавского княжества 1831-1859 гг.

En: Blue-red flag of the Moldavian principality 1831-1859

(source: Шорников П. М. Как была принята государственная символика республики Молдова, 2016)

Ru: По условиям Парижского мира (август 1858) между Францией, Россией, Англией, Пруссией, Сардинией и Османской империей для Молдавии был установлен красно-синий флаг.
En: Under the terms of the Paris Peace (August 1858) between France, Russia, England, Prussia, Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire, a red and blue flag was erected for Moldavia.
(source: Спаткай Л. Гербы и флаги стран мира. Европа. Часть II, 2018)

En: Article 264. The cavalry is armed with a spear with a blue-red flag at the tip. (source: Principality Constitution – Regulamentul Organic)

Ro: Art. 264. Pedestrimea este înarmată de o cu baionetă, iar suptofițerii şi doboşarii au câte o sabie scurtă aninată de palaşcă. Călărimea este înarmată de un pistol, de o sabie şi de o lance de lemn ferecată cu fier având la capăt o flanbură de zof vânătă roşie. (source: Regulamentele organice ale Valahiei si Moldovei din 1831-1832)

About the official coat of arms. The coat of arms of the principality was depicted on the official documents of the principality, including on the passport. Similar images are shown in this Romanian source: Dan Cernovodeanu, Stiinta Si Arta Heraldica În România, 1977. Romanian description and source page numbers are listed above. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

- Colours are attested, but design is not. Actual preserved military flags are blue with red corners, not horizontal bands. Regarding the CoA, it should be noted (as indicated by Cernavodeanu) that the CoA of Moldavia preffered a wisent over the traditional aurochs beginning with the 18th century (probably because the aurochs had become extinct by then). Both versions (the aurochs appearing on coins and early prints, and the wisent in the 18th and 19th century representations) are equally "official", just for different periods.Anonimu (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

- - These are not the military flags of the principality. These are the banners of the battalions of the Moldavian army. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re→RfC: Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia

@Buidhe: - Please detail the conclusion that was the basis for closing the last discussion. I'm trying to figure out if your summary statement has been properly understood by other editors. Thank you! (Rgvis (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

Rgvis The conclusion is that a verifiable source is needed for the historical use of the flag and/or coat of arms *by* the principality of Moldavia. If there is no source confirming the historical accuracy of the flags/symbols, then they should be removed. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags, particularly the section "Do not rewrite history" (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: - For almost 13 years (from 2008 until recently), the two representations for Moldavia (red and yellow flag and CoA) were based on images from Flags of the World. Is the information from the FOTW website (in this case edited by Alex Danes and Mario Fabretto at and ) considered reliable for use in Wikipedia article (I've noticed that many other Wikipedia articles also use this resource)? (Rgvis (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC))
  - I'm not going to rule on the WP:RS of this source, but the issue is verifiability. For instance, the square red-and-yellow flag that's used in this article is based on the top image on this webpage. The source does not explicitly make the claim that this is a historical flag of Moldavia and does not provide any evidence of its historical use. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
    - @Buidhe: - In fact, there are multiple other sources, this flag being one of the variants constantly detailed at a descriptive level by scholars in the field; it also appears in visual descriptions, such as this similar reconstruction (on page 73 of ) published in a specialized journal. But what about the main issue for which, in fact, this RfC was opened: the blue-red horizontal striped flag, for which there is no contemporary source in the field of vexillology to certify it as a large flag of the mentioned period, the specialists referring to it as just a lance pennon that was used by the Moldavian cavalry (in addition, this variant does not appear as a large flag in any museum or in any contemporary collection of original or reconstructed Moldavian flags). Instead, it seems to have become a source of manipulation for the political faction of neo-Soviet ideology (and its followers) in the current Republic of Moldova, which only tries to invent certain symbols to certify an individual historical link between the former principality and the current state. In this situation, given that Wikipedia's requirements are obviously not met, and there is also a strong consensus to exclude it, what would be the reason for the preservation of the blue-red flag variant in this article? (Rgvis (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC))
      - Rgvis, please stop making personal attacks about other users and find actual reliable sources supporting you POV. The link you provided only indicates a "military standard", not a state flag, which is moreover triangular and not rectangular as you claim. The use of red-blue military standards is also attested, as indicated multiple times on this page (never as a state flag indeed).Anonimu (talk)
        First of all, I'm pretty sure Buidhe has his own critical thinking, and can formulate an answer on his own (as he has done, in the meantime). Secondly, regarding the sources you refer to, none of them constitute a specialized study in the field (making only some marginal or superficial references to a so-called flag), nor do they represent the point of view of a heraldic specialist or vexillologist; so, there is no question of any "attestation" of that flag. (Rgvis (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

As stated by Anonimu what is needed is sources stating that the exactssame flag was used to represent the principality in a civilian context as a state flag. If the sources don't exist the flag must be removed as we're not allowed to rewrite history. (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess this aspect should also apply to the newly introduced blue-red flag, right? (Rgvis (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Yes, of course. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

For the blue-red flag (1832–1859), the sources with quotes are indicated above. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Which of your sources accurately describes or depicts the flag you drew (as "the exact same flag used to represent the principality in a civilian context as a state flag")? (Rgvis (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

Four sources with quotations are given above. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: This means that none of your sources accurately describes or depicts the flag you drew. (Rgvis (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

You wishful thinking.

1. The Wallachian flag consisted of yellow and red stripes, and the Moldavian one of blue and red.

2. Blue-red flag of the Moldavian principality 1831-1859.

3. Red and blue flag was erected for Moldavia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир:

1. There are no clear details: in what form, and in what proportion? What kind of stripes, horizontal or vertical? According to contemporary specialists the only version with horizontal stripes was used as lance pennons for the Moldavian cavalry, and it had different shapes , ;

2. Blue-red means that it can be any of the known variants (original and reconstructed) already exposed in museums and exhibitions (but in none of these presentations your variant does exist): , ;

3. Same issue as shown at point 2 (completely evasive description; could be any variant); in addition, we know that during this period the main flag of the principality was that of the ruler, which also was blue-red.

Basically, your only source remains the catalog of naval flags from 1849, which today is not considered reliable. (Rgvis (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

Why invent when there are images?

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, you drew a flag using very old sources, which, in the view of the contemporary specialists, are not reliable, arguing that there is no historical evidence for the existence of this flag variant in reality (see WP:AGE MATTERS). So far, all contemporary reliable sources show us the following:

- the simple horizontal striped blue-red variant was a lance pennon of the Moldavian cavalry (as it appears in the various graphic representations), and not a large flag (as you drew it);

- during the Organic period, the state flag of Moldavia was considered the flag of the incumbent ruler (which was also in the blue-red colors).

This is the only information that properly fulfills the WP:COPO policies. (Rgvis (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

I have a feeling that any sources that contradict your point of view will be declared unreliable. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Theoretically, on Wikipedia, it's not about what we like or not, the policies being as clear as possible. From my point of view, I would have no problem with the blue-red version you personally drew, if it were not refuted by contemporary sources. On the other hand, the red version (which has been on Wikipedia since 2008) is described in old documents and in contemporary sources (being also officially described on the website of the Romanian presidency), and reconstituted and exhibited in several museums in Romania and Moldova. In fact, one more source can be found on the website of the National Military Museum in Bucharest which has a virtual tour of the permanent exhibition, where it can be seen that the red symbols (flag and coat of arms) appear several times in the exhibition, including as the representative version of the Principality of Moldavia, while the blue-red version with horizontal stripes appears once, reproduced as a lance pennon (with a different shape from your drawing, along with the similar blue-yellow version of the Wallachian principality), in full agreement with the other sources mentioned above. (Rgvis (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC))

virtual tour of the permanent exhibition. Do you seriously consider this an authoritative source? And does it bother you that there is NO red coat of arms from the time of Stephen the Great in any scientific source? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The preservation of artifacts is not important to Wikipedia. For Wikipedia, it is important to mention this or that fact in authoritative sources. Therefore, the absence of a red and blue flag in Romanian museums proves nothing. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: This kind of source is called primary source, which in such circumstances are considered acceptable, as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. In fact, what we can observe so far is that there is a very clear correlation between the statements of contemporary specialists and museum exhibits, which confirms that this blue-red variant was used only as a lance pennon. The presence of exhibits, originals or reproductions (which are made by professionals in the field) in museums are facts (as opposed to drawings made by various anonymous users), and are certainly reliable sources for Wikipedia, given that many images on Wikimedia Commons also originate from museum sources. Apart from the lance pennon variant, there is no other information regarding the existence of any reconstruction with the blue-red version you drew. Your first source (from Grosul) describes a military ceremony (parade) from 1830, without giving any other details, or it is already known that this flag belonged to the Moldavian cavalry, as confirmed by your fourth source (Regulamentul Organic), too.

As for the coat of arms variant you drew (after a monochrome passport image as a model), it uses colors that are not described anywhere and that are not reconstructed in museums or other publications (if there is a source after which you have inspired, it must be mentioned).

Therefore, both your flag and your coat of arms are not attested at all, at this time. (Rgvis (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC))

I wonder, isn't the problem that didn't allow the red and blue symbols to be removed fixed already? Most people agreed on removing them and keeping only the yellow and red symbols, but this didn't happen due to none of the options being sourced on the article. However, both are now, which means the red and yellow symbols are verified now and thus the blue and red ones can be removed. Wouldn't this be right, Buidhe? Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can implement the RfC result at any time. However, it's not clear to me that sources have been provided to the satisfaction of RfC participants, in particular sources that actually say that the flags were used as state flags at the time, as opposed to representing the monarch or military. (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No actual scholarly source has been provided for the time being.Anonimu (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: by neutral user in this topic @Buidhe:, @Rgvis:, @Anonimu:, @Super Dromaeosaurus: User Лобачев Владимир has been spreading his nationalistic-chauvinistic POV all across the Eastern European topics. If you have any doubts about his statements truth, then most likely they are false propaganda. Pay attention to a fact that all three flags provided above were uploaded by himself. He has recently provided chauvinistic statements about Lithuania as well: take a look. If he persistently pushes his nationalistic POV, which contradicts the recognized facts, then I suggest to simply report him at the AN with clear evidence (his diffs). It was already performed recently: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda to the article of Pahonia. From my own experience, Лобачев Владимир's statements constantly were a false propaganda and this user must be stopped like his friend Kazimier Lachnovič who is already tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics (first by Barkeep49, then by Ymblanter). Do not surrender when you are attacked by Лобачев Владимир. -- Pofka (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a Romanian source.

The colours of the two Romanian Principalities were decided upon by the Organic Regulations (1831-1832), Moldavia being assigned red and blue , while Walachia yellow and blue
(source: Regulamentele Organice Valahiei și Moldovei Vol. I, Bucharest, 1944).

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The meaning of this text has already been discussed (these colors being used in various flag variants). (Rgvis (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC))

@Rgvis: Most likely user Лобачев Владимир is part of the Russian web brigades. He does not seek for the truth. His only mission is to spread Russian POV, WP:OR. So when his Russian nationalistic POV sources are denied as unreliable, he then will repeat his baseless pseudo theories again and again without any arguments. Just take a look at the article Pogonia in which he consistently performs edit warring without providing any arguments why Lithuania is not Lithuania, and simply attempts to dictate his personal (or his employers) POV. People like him are getting paid in Russia for participating in such Russian web brigades, so he will not give up. Do not step back as that's exactly what this nationalist seeks for. -- Pofka (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: I have been noticing, for a long time, the disruptive editings of this kind of users (sometimes even managing in misleading other good faith users, too (including administrators)). Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have immediate solutions to these behaviors, other than those stipulated in its policies. However, regarding this specific user, ping me at any time, if steps are initiated at the admin panel to sanction his general behavior (which has led to many disruptive edits, not only on Wikipedia but also on the other sister projects) and to vote for any of the possible enforcement policies. (Rgvis (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC))

Pofka, following my most recent interactions on Wikidata with this user, in which he uses the typical lame anti-Romanian propaganda according to which nothing Romanian existed before the 19th century (and according to which a "Moldavian" and """"""Wallachian"""""" languages existed), I am convinced this user does far more harm than good. I am also up for participating in any administrative measure in the case a discussion is started. Super Ψ Dro 09:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I told you from the beginning. By the way, today he ran out of arguments and continues his edit warring by pushing cyber leninist (leninka) reference into this article (his edit). This user should be blocked permanently because he simply is a disruptive user whose mission is to spread Russian POV, humiliate other countries, nations, their statehood, etc. He is performing disruptive editing in multiple projects, including Wiki data and Commons. Seeing how agresively he attacks other countries and persistently pushes Russian POV, it is certain that he is part of the Russian web brigades or similar groups. -- Pofka (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If anybody finds something actionable with a user's behaviour, please bring it to the appropriate venue. Otherwise, comments such as the ones above constitute personal attacks, and as this article falls within WP:ARBEE, they are subject of discretionary sanctions.Anonimu (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference for the Greek name (Μολδαβίας): http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstream/10442/4266/1/INR_Paizi_97_01.pdf If there were other used variants, they should be discussed. (Rgvis (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

This is an article written in modern standard Greek, a language that was only standardized in the last 100 years and is not representative for the Greek used at the court of Moldavia 200+ years ago. Do note that actual samples of writing from that time use the term Μπογδανία in the very article you linked.Anonimu (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

However, the name Μολδαβία seems to be used in official documents (Callimachi Code). (Rgvis (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

For

Votes

Comments

Against

Votes

Comments

Re→RfC: Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia

For

Votes

Comments

Against

Votes

Comments

Re→RfC: Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia

Article Name

Merging with the Moldavia region

Good, but undersourced

Territory of Moldavia

Citations/footnotes

Khotyn

Untitled

Past Leaders

Merge Moldova?

Rating on the quality scale

Recent modifications

Requested move 1

Requested move

salirize&nbsp;???

slavic etymology

Language

Hatnote

Principality and historical region

Moldavian independence from Hungarian control

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified (February 2018)

Principality of Moldavia: hardly worth a mention?

Splitting

Official flag of the Moldavian Principality in 1831-1859

Official coat of arms of 1855

RfC: Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia

Administrative languages

salirize ???