Talk:Stephen the Great

message: *Stephen III of Moldavia: Olessi, KissL
*Variations of Stephen the Great of Moldavia: John Kenney, Jmabel, Anittas
*Naming conventions (summarised above by Olessi) suggest to me Stephen III of Moldavia. No conclusion yet. Rd232 talk 14:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the requested move to Stephen the Great be cancelled? --Scott Davis Talk 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll move it into the "clarification" section near the bottom of the page - post clarification there when you have it (and let me know on my talk) and I'll sort it, if no-one gets there before me. Rob Church Talk 20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: 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  should be removed from the article. For more information about footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use. --Alcohol120 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations/footnotes 

message: I changed "the first to inflict a decisive victory over the Ottomans" to "one of the first to gain a decisive victory over the Ottomans," because that's a better way of putting it and because Hunyadi won a decisive battle at Belgrade almost 20 years before Stephen.  Stephen's victory halted Mehmed's expansion into Europe from the Balkans, but it was Hunyadi's victory that allowed the Balkans, and in fact all of Europe, any strategic defense at all.  That is not to say that Stephen's victory was not important.  Tactically it was the worst defeat Mehmed ever suffered, but it strategically it was not as decisive as the siege of Belgrade.Shield2 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Siege of Belgrade was a victory, but not a decisive one. It was an important one, but I can't say how important it really was compared to Vaslui. Both positions threatened the Catholic border. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One of the first to gain a decisive victory

message: There are plenty of Nowakowska 2004 in short citations, but that work is not listed in the full bibliography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your message. I fixed the references. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken short citations 

message: I think I remember bringing up this issue here or elsewhere a long time ago: there is absolutely no way the icon of a man canonized in 1992 can be PD. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon

message: When you have the time, please check your formatting of Grabarczyk. You gave a page number in the full citation at the bottom, but another page in all the citations up to that. And they're presumably all on one page, since it's an encyclopedia entry. But which one is the right page? Dahn (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: A query

message: Based on Muresan, we are informed that Stephen adopted unspecified imperial titles at an unspecified date, but he was not threatened by excommunication. I think we should clarify this issues (the imperial titles and the date of their adoption), if we want to decide, whether this piece of information is relevant at the beginning of his reign, or he only later adopted those titles. Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He only later did, but the precise date is unknown. Also do remove the bit about Ohrid: I wanted to add it myself, but only Cantemir claimed that it was Ohrid where he had been ordained; other historians who do not back this claim (which is apparently grossly incorrect) do still claim that Cantemir was right about other things. All sourced from Mureșan, loc. cit. Dahn (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If he only later used imperial titles, why is this mentioned at the beginning of his rule? What were the imperial titles? Does Muresan mention this story in connection with Stephen's use of Christian devices, or this is only an original synthesis? I think we should clarifiy that the Orthodoxy of Teoctist has never been questioned. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Tsar, for instance. 2) Yes, he does. He says that Stephen's recourse to Christian Byzantine imagery invalidates every claim that he was a schismatic. 3) It depends what you mean by "his Orthodoxy": the breakaway Orthodox churches also viewed themselves,but not each other, as Orthodox; yes, there have been historians who question(ed) that, his belonging to this or that church, in reference to him. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) I think, this title could be mentioned. (2) Does he mention "Stephen's recourse to Christian Byzantine imagery" in connection with his annointment? (3) If my understanding is correct, the cited author says that neither the metropolitan nor Stephen were schismatics. Why do you think we should not say this? Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Did. 2. Yes, over several pages in the cited interval. You can verify this by going back to the tidbit about the anointment and seeing that he is cited there as well. 3. I have said exactly this: "Historian Dan Ioan Mureșan argues that the evidence is for the latter option". Dahn (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to clarify: I personally think Mureșan is right and in any case eloquent in rejecting the speculation that Stephen founded his own church or whatever. But the speculation, which dates back to the 1700s and is carried by prominent and respectable authors to this day (including Gorovei and Pilat and, I think, also Alexandru Simon -- i.e. experts we cite for other facts), needs to be briefly mentioned in the article. Dahn (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For a comparison: I find the claim stated (for instance) by Demciuc, that Stephen dictated bits of his chronicles, to be highly speculative and doubtful, not to mention ironic (we don't yet have any record specifically saying Stephen spoke Romanian, though it is reasonable to assume that he did; but here would be evidence that, if taken at face value, would mean that he conversed in Slavonic). Yet I added it to the article -- because it is not my own thesis, but a summary based on all relevant claims stated in quotable scholarship. Dahn (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial titles 

message: This article was mostly left untouched by that imposing and cold-hearted style forced out on us by the Night King, but now I see that its time has come: this article will become tundra frost. Winter is coming. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake about asking for a source in the lead, but I don't see a source in the article either. Here's the unsourced sentence: "Modern Romanians regard him as one of their greatest national heroes, although he also endures as a cult figure in Moldovenism. After the Romanian Orthodox Church canonized him in 1992, he is venerated as Stephen the Great and Holy". I don't think it makes me a vandal for asking for a source. As for this user you insist on mentioning and saying that I am him ... not sure what the deal is, but I checked his page and he hasn't been active in a decade or so. If you don't feel like sourcing the controversial statement then I won't push for it. Your aggression makes me feel uncomfortable.--Cei Trei (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep looking and you'll see it, dear. And no, dear, you didn't "ask for a source", you removed sourced text because you dislike the opinion (I'm not a fan of it either, but it has to be mentioned, because as stupid as it is, it has become an important issue.) Dahn (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw this: "Thus, Stephen was invoked by both the Popular Front of Moldova, which favored Romanian identity, and the Moldovenist Party of Communists.[304] The latter describes Stephen as "the founder of Moldavian statehood", claiming direct continuity from his principality to the present-day state.[305]". I'm guessing that you linked the false statement that they made about the continuity with Moldovenism. It might very well be, although I doubt this is mentioned in the book and I'm not qualified to make the interpretation; however, I choose to trust your judgment. What I disprove of, however, is to add this minor detail in the lead. But because you seem to have a strong distaste of me, I won't challenge you. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Cojocari sepcifically mentions Moldovenism as the ideology of the Communist Party of Moldova, and her whole thesis about the party's use of Stephen is called "Moldovenism-building". Verify it then be gone. (Other sources, including Boia and Eagles, also refer to Moldovenism under various synonyms, in Boia's case going back to Asachi.) Dahn (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Night King

message: File:Moldavia - Ulrich von Richental.svg|Coat of arms of Moldavia 1420–1430 ?
File:Herczog von Ascholott hider der Walachye.png|Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1414–1418
Wallachian coat of arms in a 1464 copy of Ulrich Richental's.png|Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1464
Wallachian coat of arms.png|Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1483
Coat of arms of Bessarabia in Stematographia colors.jpg|Coat of arms of Wallachia-Bessarabia. 1702
Coat of arms of Bessarabia in Stematographia.jpg|Coat of arms of Wallachia-Bessarabia. Reprint 1741
Basarabia Sigilium Vitezovic.svg|Coat of arms of Wallachia-Bessarabia. Reprint 1741
Here is a similar image of the coat of arms.  His author, Ulrich Richental. In book Basarab House of Wallachia. Heraldry and genealogy it is qualified as the coat of arms of Wallachia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Moldavia - Ulrich von Richental.svg]]