Talk:Moldavia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do:


The information about the origin 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)

Contents

[edit] Merge Moldova?

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)

[edit] Moldova united w Romania

A union between Moldavia and Romania was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris (1920). this should be reformulated

  • Moldavia/Moldova united with Valahia/Wallachia and Transylvania in 1599-1600 under Michael the brave
  • Bessarabia (eastern Moldova) was annexed by Russia in 1812
  • western Moldavia/Moldova united with Valahia/Wallachia in 1856-1859 under Ioan Cuza
  • Bessarabia (eastern Moldova) united with Romania in 1920 -- criztu

[edit] slavic etymology

  • 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)

[edit] Article Name

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!

[edit] Merging with the Moldavia region

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.

[edit] Good, but undersourced

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)

[edit] Territory of Moldavia

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
  1. about P of M
  2. 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)

+some borders
+some borders
English Romanian Russian Years Map
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

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:
  1. The map here is very useful and should be added to the article.
  2. 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)


[edit] Citations/footnotes

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)

[edit] Khotyn

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)

[edit] Past Leaders

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/Talk%7EMoldavia_8515.html"