Talk:Founding of Moldavia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First data

After , A.D. Xenopol,P. Parasca O. Pecican and other Romanian historians, Moldova was established in 1285 during — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Dragoş took possession of the province, in , in the name of King Louis I of Hungary (1342–1382). After Pavel Parasca, A.D. Xenopol and other Romanian historians ,,,

Moldova was a kingdom

READ this:(has an abstract in french) http://ulim.md/digilib/assets/files/Reviste/Revist_%20de%20Istorie%20_i%20Politic__STUDII%20ISTORICE_%20HISTORICAL%20STUDIES_3.pdf

READ THIS and do not vandalize documents ! all are extracted from main verifiable sources. See above address !!!!

Borsoka doesn't know Moldova history and real data; . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But I have reliable sources that can be used when editing the article. I suggest you should also read reliable sources and use them instead of changing several sentences in the article without adding proper references. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

READ this:(has an abstract in french) http://ulim.md/digilib/assets/files/Reviste/Revist_%20de%20Istorie%20_i%20Politic__STUDII%20ISTORICE_%20HISTORICAL%20STUDIES_3.pdf They are scientific researches based on other historic documents. If YOU KNOW FRENCH YOU WILL UNDERSTAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It states that "Vladislav of Hungary" was Ladislaus IV of Hungary (1270-1290), therefore the dismounting by Dragos happened in the 1280s. The article also refers (based on Spinei's work) to this interpretation: Dragos was one of the Romanians who arrived in the Kingdom of Hungary under "Vladislav of Hungary". Do you suggest that the king's identification with Ladislaus IV "the Cuman" should be added? Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

All old chronicles and monasteries have paintings with kings of Moldova wearing royal crowns. They also have heraldic signs and banners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you refer to reliable sources using the term "kings of Moldova" in connection with the foundation of the Principality of Moldavia. For instance, the English version of Spinei's work does not use this term. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

After A.D. Xenopol, P. Parasca, O. Pecican and other Romanian historians, Moldova was funded by Dragos in 1285 during Vladislav The IVth, The Cuman ,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

These theories are OR. They are not accepted extensively.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Vasary an obsolete anti-romanian historian

Florin Curta today an american historian, wrote about Vasary in a review about Vasary work:

"Vasary's obvious bias against Romanians has led him to champion an obsolete nineteenth-century theory developed by Robert Roesler, which holds that Romanians arrived in Romania through migration from the Balkans ca. 1200."

Dr. Curta adds that "an equally anti-Romanian bias led Vasary to deny any constructive historical role for the 'Vlakhs in Cumania': their 'small voivodates or kenezates...testify to Hungarian initiatives,' not to local structures of power".

"Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimize the Romanian presence in history"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 

F. Curta added: In my review, I noted that the procedure is understandable in cases such Brasso (now Brasov) and (Nagy)Szeben (now Sibiu). This is true even if it remains unclear whether or not such names were truly in use during the period covered by Vasary's book, when both cities were primarily inhabited by speakers of German, not of Hungarian. Moreover, I see a problem of consistency with employing place names in use during the Middle Ages. During the late 1200s, the name of the most important city in southern Dalmatia was Ragusa, yet Vasary uses Dubrovnik instead (p. 100). Similarly, by 1286, present-day Lviv was within the borders of the Rus' principality of Galicia-Volhynia. Following Vasary's own logic, it is therefore not "natural" to mention the city by its German (Lemberg) or Polish (Lwow) name (p. 88). In the face of such inconsistencies indicative of Vasary's bias, one begins to question the very principle of using "medieval" place names. Who, among those writing about the history of al-Andalus in English, refer to Sevilla as al-Isbili or to Cordoba as al-Qurtubiyya? Be it as it may, to use a Hungarian name (Jaszvasar) for a city (Iasi), which "in one way or another" was never part of the Kingdom of Hungary is a very different matter. There can be only two explanations for that. Either Vasary sees the entire geography of Southeastern Europe as Hungarian, or his book was initially written for a Hungarian audience (who might supposedly know more about Jaszvasar than about Iasi) and sloppily translated into English.

About Vasari exact data :

Vasary claims that instead of the Romanian names routinely mangled there are only "three misprints". Here is a complete list: "Jara Birsei" (instead of Tara Barsei) and "Jara Fagarasului" (instead of Tara Fagarasului) on page 28 and 168; "Moldoa" (instead of Moldova) on pages 134 and 143; "Moldva" (instead of Moldova) on pages 136, 143, 156, and 158; "Seret" (instead of Siret) on page 138; "Tratos" (instead of Trotus) on page 104. The entire title (translated into Romanian on page 142) that the Wallachian metropolitan used during the Middle Ages is misspelled: "archiepiscopu si metropolit Ungro-Vlachiei" (instead of "arhiepiscopul si mitropolitul Ungro-Vlahiei"). For someone who not only claims to be able to read Romanian, but also cites Uspenskii and Zlatarski in the original (albeit transliterated) language (e.g ., on p. 32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you suggest that Cambridge University Press support anti-Romanian propaganda when publishin his work? Borsoka (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear user 79.112.26.149, What is your exact problem with Vasary's work? The mistranslated names of settlements? I respect Curta's works but his opinion is only his opinion. There are hundreds of academics in the world and they may have different opinions. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for a neutral approach I would like to cite some of Vásáry's own remarks on Curta's above review: "In his review, Dr. Curta claims that "Vasary's obvious bias[italic mine] against Romanians has led him to champion an obsolete nineteenth-century theory developed by Robert Roesler, which holds that Romanians arrived in Romania through migration from the Balkans ca. 1200." This, I think, is the key sentence, the one in which we can detect the origin and cause of Dr. Curta's accusation: I dared to subscribe to Roesler's "obsolete" nineteenth-century theory and, as a result, I oppose the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity, which, incidentally, lies at the very heart of Romanian nationalism. He who opposes this theory can only be an enemy of Romanians. Dr. Curta adds that "an equally anti-Romanian bias [italic mine] led Vasary to deny any constructive historical role for the 'Vlakhs in Cumania': their 'small voivodates or kenezates...testify to Hungarian initiatives,' not to local structures of power". So, if someone thinks other than in terms of the established commonplaces of Romanian national historiography, is he automatically guilty of anti-Romanian bias? Is it necessary to subscribe to a particular theory in order to be a serious historian? Dr. Curta then reminds me of my own words: "Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimize the Romanian presence in history" (p. 29). Yes, I fully agree with myself and with Dr. Curta, but this statement has nothing to do with my views concerning the origins of the Romanian ethnos. Likewise, I do not subscribe to those theories that try to date the Hungarian presence in the Carpathian Basin to before the conquest at the end of the ninth century. When I reject certain theories concerning the appearance of the Hungarians in their present-day homeland, it does not automatically mean that I am guilty of anti-Hungarian bias. Similarly, when I eschew particular theories with regard to the Romanians, including the official Daco-Romanian theory, I am not necessarily guilty of anti-Romanian prejudice." [1] Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As an expression of his antiRomanian position, Vasary uses the Romanian names routinely mangled. Here is a complete list: "Jara Birsei" (instead of Tara Barsei) and "Jara Fagarasului" (instead of Tara Fagarasului) on page 28 and 168; "Moldoa" (instead of Moldova) on pages 134 and 143; "Moldva" (instead of Moldova) on pages 136, 143, 156, and 158; "Seret" (instead of Siret) on page 138; "Tratos" (instead of Trotus) on page 104. The entire title (translated into Romanian on page 142) that the Wallachian metropolitan used during the Middle Ages is misspelled: "archiepiscopu si metropolit Ungro-Vlachiei" (instead of "arhiepiscopul si mitropolitul Ungro-Vlahiei"). For someone who not only claims to be able to read Romanian, but also cites Uspenskii and Zlatarski in the original (albeit transliterated) language.

All data about Cumans, Tatars, Romanians and Bulgarians are full of mangled names. So this Vasary pseudo author is not a reliable source.

Do you suggest that Cambridge University Press publishes unreliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious Vasari fooled CU Press publishing books with 50-80% mangled geographical and historical names. CU Press was already noticed and Vasari is banned ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

???? Would you provide the source of the above information which highly offends an internationally respected historian? Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Respected historian? Already F. Curta showed the quality of this historian: majority of his geographical or historical names are mangled ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Moldova =Moldavia

See — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.10.226 (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See Florin Curta now American Historian position about Moldova names, in a critic article about pseudohistorian Vasari:

"As an expression of his antiRomanian position, Vasary uses the Romanian names routinely mangled. Here is a complete list: "Jara Birsei" (instead of Tara Barsei) and "Jara Fagarasului" (instead of Tara Fagarasului) on page 28 and 168; "Moldoa" (instead of Moldova) on pages 134 and 143; "Moldva" (instead of Moldova) on pages 136, 143, 156, and 158; "Seret" (instead of Siret) on page 138; "Tratos" (instead of Trotus) on page 104. The entire title (translated into Romanian on page 142) that the Wallachian metropolitan used during the Middle Ages is misspelled: "archiepiscopu si metropolit Ungro-Vlachiei" (instead of "arhiepiscopul si mitropolitul Ungro-Vlahiei"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.10.226 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the realia of the English language, Moldova is the name of the modern state. Moldavia - the name of the historical principality. --illythr (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you, dear anonymous, refer to a reliable source written in English by a historian of any nationality who uses the term "Moldova" for the "Principality of Moldavia"? The Romanian historian, Curta, in his highly biased review, refers to Moldova River, not to the principality. Borsoka (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Read about Moldova in English here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

References:

Jewish Roots in Ukraine and Moldova: Pages from the Past and Archival Inventories (The Jewish Genealogy Series) Publisher: Miriam Weiner Routes to Roots; 1st Printing edition 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kniazhestva Valakhiia i Moldaviia: Konets XIV - Nachalo XIX vv: Ocherki Vneshnepoliticheskoi Istorii[The Kingdoms of Walachia and Moldova: The End of the 14th-early 19th centuries: Essays on the history of their foreign policy] Publisher: Indrik (January 1, 2006)

Why do you think Romanian historians use the term "Moldavia" in the context of the article in their books published in English? See, for example, Victor Spinei's cited book (Moldavia in the 11th-12th centuries) or Ioan-Aurel Pop's work (Romanians and Romania, pages 47, 64, etc), and many other books. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

About foundation of Moldova:

Kniazhestva Valakhiia i Moldaviia: Konets XIV - Nachalo XIX vv: Ocherki Vneshnepoliticheskoi Istorii[The Kingdoms of Walachia and Moldova: The End of the 14th-early 19th centuries: Essays on the history of their foreign policy] Publisher: Indrik (January 1, 2006)

Open Amazon.com and find hundred of books with Moldova and with Moldavia. It is similar to Walach/Romanian false problem launched by pseudo historians. All Europe and America use Moldova in books and in official documents. Meldavia or Muldavia or Molovia are mangled names from vosari books. Your attitude is against normal wiki practice. You show anti Moldovan opinion just like your banned Vosori. All you do is to continue to mangle Moldova's name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Anon, there was a template in the article for a week, but nobody added any reliable sources written in English which use the term "Moldova" in the context of the article. Please add at least one reliable source before reverting. All sources written in English and used by the article use the form "Moldavia". Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why you do not read this:

Kniazhestva Valakhiia i Moldaviia: Konets XIV - Nachalo XIX vv: Ocherki Vneshnepoliticheskoi Istorii[The Kingdoms of Walachia and Moldova: The End of the 14th-early 19th centuries: Essays on the history of their foreign policy] Publisher: Indrik (January 1, 2006)

Do you know English ? The book appeared in English ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know kniazhestva (= principality), konets (=end), nachalo (=beginning), etc are Russian words. But they are clearly not English terms. Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kniazhestva Valakhiia i Moldaviia: Konets XIV - Nachalo XIX vv: Ocherki Vneshnepoliticheskoi Istorii[The Kingdoms of Walachia and Moldova: The End of the 14th-early 19th centuries: Essays on the history of their foreign policy] Publisher: Indrik (January 1, 2006) English version is in the title of book Maybe you need the page of the title ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No. An ISBN is needed in order to cheque whether the book was written in Russian or in English. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

your email is necessary to verify if you are reader or ET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed in order to cheque wheather you are an editor or you are just kidding. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• The mentioned book by Semyonova is in Russian, and while it is a good source on the article's subject, it's useless for the purposes of determining the English name of anything. Looks like a semi-protection request is in order here. --illythr (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The authors showed the true name in English. There is nothing to add. Maybe if author was born in US or England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Another approach about Jewish and Moldova from Foundation to our days: and so on

Jewish Roots in Ukraine and Moldova: Pages from the Past and Archival Inventories (The Jewish Genealogy Series) Publisher: Miriam Weiner Routes to Roots; 1st Printing edition 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.33.141 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Anon, the Principality of Moldavia which is the subject of this article differs from the Republic of Moldova. Please try to add reliable sources which are connected to the subject of this article. We all know that there is a modern state named Moldova. We also know that for several centuries (from around 1400 until 1812) the Principality of Moldavia encompassed territories which now belong to the Republic of Moldova. However, the two polities are different. Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Al historians know that Moldova = Moldavia and they use both names. There are not different countries. It depends on what references you read.

It is a consensus to use Moldova to show the continuity. All doc thesis use today Moldova from foundation to our days. References show the necessity of the use of both names. Moldavia is the latinised name for strangers but majority of today scholars prefer to use Moldova as in references. According to Wiki rules alternative names need to be mentioned.

We see a single person arguing for separatism when written sources use both names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not need many sources. Please only add one reliable source written in English which uses the Moldova term in the context of the article, that is in the period when the medieval principality was established. Borsoka (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.88 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Moldova

A PHD theses do not qualify reliable sources for WP purposes. Furthermore, the source does not refer to the period of the foundation of the principality in the 14th century, but to a period in the second half of the 15th century. The identification of the Principality of Moldavia with Moldova would be disturbing, since Moldova was only a part of the medieval principality. Moreover, the territories now forming Moldova were not incorporated into the medieval Principality of Moldavia before the end of 14th century. (Reliable sources are provided in the article, for instance, Spinei 1986). Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Majority of historical papers and books in English use today Moldova and Moldavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.20.44 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please list some of those reliable sources written in English which use the term "Moldova" in the context of the article, that is in connection with the foundation of the Principality of Moldavia. You might have not realized that all the reliable sources referred to in the article use the latter expression (Moldavia). Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page is full of examples of works about MOLDOVA Only a Magyar nationalist tries to eliminate local names and scientific works and to express that hungaria arrived to Nistru (DNSTR) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.13.93 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please add only ONE reliable source written in English which uses the term Moldova in the context of the article (that is in connection with the foundation of the medieval principality which would only incorporate the lands now forming Moldova about half a century later). Why do you think Romanian historians cited in the article (Spinei, Georgescu,...) are pushing a Hungarian nationalist claim by ignoring the use of the expression Moldova? Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Descălecatul Moldovei

DESCĂLECÁT n. 1) v. A DESCĂLECA. 2) ist. (la cronicari) Statornicire pentru a întemeia o țară; întemeiere a unei țări. /v. a descăleca (http://dexonline.ro/definitie/descalecat)

Also please compare the number of Google Books results for "descalecatul moldovei" (to be noted that it appears frequently between quotes - referring to the old term used on chronicles) and "intemeierea moldovei" 79.117.216.71 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)