Talk:List of monarchs of Moldavia

message: I allowed myself to make three changes:
- I removed "the Horseshoe" from Ioan Potcoavă - it is a name, not a nickname (ie: you would not translate "Lapusneanu" as "from/of Lapusna"; these are given names).
- I translated Iancu Sasul as "John the Saxon", on the basis of Iancu being a local variant of "Ioan".
- Most importantly - Ioan Voda is first and foremost "the Terrible" ("cel Cumplit"). That was the monicker given to him by his contemporaries. Ok, by his boyar contemporaries, but there was no contemporary version of "the Brave" - that only surfaced with Ceausescu, who wanted to present his actions as legitimate and healthy violence against a decadent nobility etc., with Ioan as an "ally of the people" (a definately ideologically-induced judgment). You might meet it in other sources, but they are no different and all are written no less than four centuries after he died. I left viteaz as an alternative, but not for the main link. Be reasonable and don't switch it back.Dahn 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Moldopolo, find one source saying that Moldovan presidents are in any way successors of the Moldavian princes, and we'd have something to talk about. Until then, you're pushing original research or disrupting to make a point. Dahn (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may interest you to know, Moldopolo, that Romania was created in 1859, had two capitals (one of which was Iaşi), two assemblies, and a single ruler on two thrones. The institutions were merged over the following decade by the prince-elect, and the name "Romania" was officially adopted in the 1860s. This, as any mainstream historian will tell you, means that Romania was the successor of Moldavia for all that implies, and that Romania existed before 1878. Moldova results from the break-up of the USSR, and, under just one interpretation, may be considered a successor to the Moldavian Democratic Republic - which itself never claimed to be a successor to the Moldavian state, and eventually itself merged into Romania. Both Moldova and the Moldavian Democratic Republic exercised their sovereignty over the backwater of medieval Moldavia, were none of the Moldavian cities, let alone capitals, was located, were only a handful of Moldavian princes set foot and only in passing, and were no one but Moldopolo ever seriously implied a Carpathian or Bukovinan irredenta. Enough with the tricks, and get yourself some sources if you plan to contest any of this. Dahn (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list President of Moldova gives a detailed list of all rulers, not limiting to the function of Presidents (which exists since 1991 only). For further discussion with you, we could only move on, when you first provide a verifiable source for the edits you've made. There is no source, nor external link on this page, and you try to justofy everything, including replacing word creation by independence of Romania, only with your Greater Romania crap propaganda style rhetorics. This is encyclopedia and not a forum for expression of your irredentist POV--Moldopodo (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moldopodo, wikipedia is not a source - the fact that a list was created ort fabricated doesn't validate anything. Furthermore, I am simply disgusted by your attempt to misrepresent me and pass your original research for a solid argument - not that it would matter what I support, but I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I do not entertain any unionist or irredentist desire, let alone a Greater Romanian ideal. If you have to lie in order to carry out a conversation, I have no reason to even mind your nonsensical propaganda. Get it once and for all that I edit this page not to favor one side or the other, but to respect the historical truth and the semblance of common sense - which you have constantly failed to do. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: As for my sources, have the decency to look up any reliable source on the history of Romania, and you'll get the idea. You not mastering basic historical facts (such as when Romania was united and by whom) does not mean you can go and add your own speculation - in fact, I'm willing to bet that you have just recently discovered this page during your convoluted campaign to identify the principality west of the Prut with the republic east of the Prut (which is nothing but a fringe opinion mainly entertained by you, in what is yet another one of the attempts to turn a verifiable issue on its head. See WP:BEANS for what you are doing here. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Note that none of the post-1866 rulers of Romania laid claim to the throne of Moldova through their title, so the continuity ends pretty much when the Romanians deposed Cuza. Also, presidents of Moldova is put as see also, and doesn't imply direct continuity of the Moldavian throne. Bessarabia was never a backwater (except during late Russian and Romanian rule), and it was site to some of the most important battles, some of them deciding the fate of Moldavia. Moldova respects the will of the people, unlike Romania, and thus can't have irredentist claims over a region that doesn't want to be part of it.Xasha (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is absurd. First of all, the changes operated by Cuza in his official capacity were functional during the election of Carol - there was no need to "claim" the throne, whatever that means, because the throne had been merged with the Wallachian one by the one person with legal power to do so (Cuza himself). The fact that it was a backwater (secondary to the whole issue) will not be cancelled by battles fought on Bessarabian territory - the fact stands that it was underpopulated, underdeveloped, and did not have any city to speak of (in fact, much of the historical region of Bessarabia had already been out of Moldavia for hundreds of years before 1812). All capitals of Moldavia were west of the Prut. I actually agree that Romanians administered the region very poorly, that Russians actually developed it (according to their goals), but this has nothing to do with the marginal and highly inflammatory claim that the republic of Moldova is a successor to the Moldavian principality. Moldavia continued to exist as a state after Bessarabia was occupied, and that that state took the decision to unite itself with Wallachia. The rest is POV-pushing and original research, and I am yet to see a source stating the contrary. As for your speculation about "irredentist claims" and "the will of the people", they are merely straw men that fail to address anything in the issue at hand. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, nobody claimed the throne of Moldova after 1866. Hey, the only real city in Moldavia, if you were to compare it with Western Europe, was Iasi. Next in importance came the two trading towns Kilia and Belgorod, that, albeit under Moldavian rule for short time, were the most important on this side of the Black Sea during the classical period of Moldavia. One should not forget other important centres like Khotin, Bender (this had been taken by the Turks too in the 16th and 18th century) and, to a lesser degree, Soroca. If we consider that the only almost-towns in Transpruthian Moldavia were Suceava and Roman, we may conclude that Bessarabia was more urbanized (no matter how stupid this may sound, considering what "urban" meant in Moldavia) before 1812. I fail to see how Western Moldavia, if we exclude Iasi (that was very close to the Pruth), was more developed than Bessarabia. I can't imagine what arguments could the Romanian historiography bring to school children to inculcate such image in their minds. Moldova wasn't free either (remember Turks?), and Bessarabia kept the old Moldavian laws for at least another 50 years after 1812, so here's another false dichotomy that weakens your argument. Yes, Bessarabia eventually lost its autonomy, autonomy which Transpruthian Moldova regained later thanks to the same Russians. But this doesn't mean no continuity whatsoever between the Moldavian principality, the Moldovan DR and the Moldovan SSR (that became fully independent and changed its name to Moldova in 1991).Xasha (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody claimed it because it had united itself with Wallachia! Why is this so hard to comprehend? As for it not being "developed", let me fill you on the topic of discussion here: Moldavia existed outside Bessarabia; at no time did anyone claim that Russian rule in Bessarabia had created an alternative Moldavian state. Nobody could care less if Bessarabia kept Moldavian laws: by the same reasoning, the United States president would be a claimant to the British throne; it also doesn't matter shit if Bessarabia was or wasn't autonomous, since it still wasn't Moldavia. It also matter naught if Moldavia was under Ottoman sovereignty (or Russian, in 1821-1855!) - it still was a state, and the only state standing for Moldavia as far as even the Russians were concerned. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay civil. I refuse to reply to inflammatory messages.Xasha (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Tell me what to source and I I'll source it. In the meantime, I asked you repeatedly to provide sources for your claims, and all you have done in exchange was to bring my supposed stance into discussion and misrepresent it. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This clearly shows your desire to be as little constructive as possible in your contributions. All you want is basicly write what you want and the way you think, without any source. Asking in return sources from my side is rather wicked, but at the same time quite typical of a Romanian editor. Like I said, I am not engaging into useless rhetorics. Once you provide a source for your assertions, we could move on. Also please stop the edit war. --Moldopodotalk 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidents

message: Those who are interested, please, check the list of Moldavian leaders, some names may not answer to the Wikipedia stylistic instructions, also we might want to find a format for naming all sections in the table in a unifed way.--Moldopodotalk 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand why the move proposed by Moldopodo was reverted. It was in line with WP:NC.Xasha (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple - the article is at Moldavia, for now. If it gets moved to Principality of Moldavia (which it won't), then by all means carry out the move. And by the way, Moldavia ceased to exist as a principality in 1862, so sooner or later, the recent additions of post-1862 rulers will be erased. Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since in the 80s the Moldavian SSR was generally referred to as simply Moldavia, that is motivated. The rename would have soulved the problem, but you chose to revert it.Xasha (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In no way was this a successor state to this, regardless of its common name, and it would be wrong for us to give that impression. Biruitorul Talk 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's way Moldopodo's name was better, since "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."Xasha (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reader going to Moldavia will find the long-extinct principality, and the word "rulers" in this title leaves little ambiguity that monarchs are being referred to. However, he will also find a note that President of Moldova refers to later leaders. In any case, there really isn't much ambiguity, though I suppose some helpful notes could be added, if really desired, but the title change is a step too far. Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a reader who just read an article about MSSR and now want's to find who was leading it at a certain moment? "Ruler" isn't so inherently linked to monarchs as you wish to portrait it. For example Rulers of France, Rulers of Germany and Rulers of Greece all include the presidents of the modern republics. As for the link to the presidents in this article, is so unnoticeable that the average reader will come to the conclusion that the article is incomplete. And again, you should think about what the consumer wants, not about what you like.Xasha (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, actually, the reader reading about the MSSR would find this section quite helpful, no? Biruitorul Talk 01:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MSSR was commonly referred as Moldavia, see for example Google Book Search.Xasha (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. In no way does that imply, however, that we need to confuse the issue by including the leaders of Soviet Moldavia here; they have their place here. Biruitorul Talk 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Very well. also, add the presidents of the United States of Mexico to the  List of Presidents of the United States. They also have the same name. bogdan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only an expert or a reader from the region would known that Moldavia refers to MSSR. But WP:NC says very clearly that those aren't our target audience. Putting here all post 1862 leaders is not the solution I'm suggesting.Xasha (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: May I ask that, since this is (for some reason) a controversial area, any future moves be made using WP:RM? Thanks. Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full list of Moldavian leaders