Talk:Stephen the Great

Birthdate/Birthplace?

1) There's something strange about Stephen's birthdate: in the body of the article is given as ca. 1437, while in the cameo is given as 1443. They can't be both true.

2) Now, we know that he took part - alongside his cousin Vlad Tepes - at the Battle of Crasna in 1450, where his father, Bogdan defeated an invading Polish army. I doubt that his father would let him fight the Poles at the tender age of 7, and even at 13 (even if this is not unheard of; in those times teenager heirs apparent were sometimes taken along by their fathers when campaigning).

3) We also know that legend, folklore and oral tradition has it that Stephen spent (at least part of) his childhood at Borze?ti, but are there any reliable sources attesting that he was actually born there?

4) Any ideas how to solve these inconsistencies?

He was born in 1433. As for the article, it is Dahn's resonsibility. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you ask him to fix it? I don't want to do it by myself... Also, can you point to any sources for the birthyear?

Anittas was making one of his trademark remarks, of which he assumes are clever. I only copyedited the article at some point, and kept doing various edits that I saw as urgent. There is nothing to prevent you from editing the article or any other, so feel free to.

Oh, and: you will find characters with diacritics in your edit window, as clickable icons (just scroll down in your window after clicking "edit", and you'll find them there). Dahn 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Basarab Dynasty

I read Stefan cel Mare, Mircea cel Batran, John Hunyadi, Vlad Tepes and Michael the Brave were all from the Basarab dynasty. I think it would be interesting for people to know that Matthias Corvinus and Stefan cel Mare were relatives. -- criztu

Stefan cel Mare was from the Musatin family.

Yes, but apparently Stephen and Vlad were cousins. Also, Stephen's mother, Maria-Oltea, seems to have been of Wallachian origins. See http://old.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=42596 (in Romanian).

Article Name

Shouldn't this article be at Stephen the Great instead of Ştefan cel Mare according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)? See Michael the Brave instead of Mihai Viteazul as well. Olessi 04:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the naming conventions this article could also be at Stephen III of Moldavia or Stefan III of Moldavia (based on List of Moldavian rulers). Olessi 04:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it should not be where it is. I might prefer Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia. Without the Moldavia qualifier, I don't think most english-speakers would have any idea who he is. john k 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That would make more sense than simply Stephen the Great. To play devil's advocate, however, Frederick the Great is found at Frederick II of Prussia, not Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. However, I do prefer your suggestion. Olessi 22:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think John Kenney's suggestion is a good one. Another possibility is Stephen the Great of Moldavia. Also, all of the other reasonable possibilities should be either redirects or disambiguations. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Kings and Emperors (and equivalents) are currently treated differently on wikipedia from holders of lesser titles. john k 06:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Him being an independent ruler (at least for some of the time), I would prefer the title Stephen III of Moldavia, with a lead like this:

Stephen III of Moldavia, also called Stephen the Great (Romanian: Ştefan cel Mare) or Stephen Muşat III (Borzeşti, 1433 – Suceava, 1504-07-02) was a voivod (prince) of Moldova (1457-1504), who won renown in Europe for his long resistance against the Ottoman Empire.

In any case, the link to Romanian language would be nice, since not all readers will know what language they speak in Moldavia. KissL 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He was known as Stephen the Great; the pope called him that and the different chronicler called him that. In other ennyclopedies, he is also referred to as Stephen the Great. Example:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/StphnG1rt.asp

Even Hungarians call him that. Now, Americans want to change his well-deserved title. Figures... --Anittas 13:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The title of the article and the name we call that particular person is not the same thing, don't draw hasty conclusions. Nobody wants to change the name throughout the article, or in any other articles that link here. I personally prefer article titles that fit with the rest of the encyclopedia (as is the case with Frederick the Great). Also, Stephen the Great redirects here. (On the net, Stephen I of Hungary is sometimes referred to as Stephen the Great, but that's not a name we use in Hungary; our first king is usually simply called "King St. Stephen". So nothing against the redirect.)

We could say something like this then:

Stephen III of Moldavia, also called Stephen Muşat III (Borzeşti, 1433 – Suceava, 1504-07-02) was a voivod (prince) of Moldova (1457-1504), who won renown in Europe for his long resistance against the Ottoman Empire. He became known as Stephen the Great (Romanian: Ştefan cel Mare).

KissL 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion, Kissl. Michael the Brave could be improved with the same formula (Michael II of Wallachia etc.). What does Muşat mean? Anittas, I don't understand your quick assumption. We are discussing possible replacements for "Ştefan cel Mare". Louis VIII the Lion is at Louis VIII of France, Peter the Great is at Peter I of Russia, Catherine the Great is at Catherine II of Russia, Louis the Great is at Louis I of Hungary etc. The only leaders that I have found that do not follow this policy are from the Dark Ages and earlier: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Henry the Fowler, Alexander the Great etc. Based on these standards, Stephen the Great should be at Stephen III of Moldavia, while Michael the Brave should be at Michael II of Wallachia. Olessi 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary

• 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)

Does anyone object if I move this article to Stephen III of Moldavia (with listing of Stephen the Great and Ştefan cel Mare in the intro)? Olessi 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the requested move to Stephen the Great be cancelled? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago Bogdangiusca had said that he was going to take a look at the topic. I would like to wait until he gives his opinion before any decisions are made. If consensus is reached here after the request is removed from the Requested Moves page, I can just post it again, right? Olessi 14:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

two weeks no objections to the name "Stephen III of Moldavia" So I've moved it. However I have edited the articles which had names like "Stefan the Great" "Stephen the Great" to etc rather than change the redirects. So only "Stephen the Great", "Stefan cel Mare" as well as the previous page name "Ştefan cel Mare" redirect here. So if anyone objects strongly and wants to reverse the move, or move it to another page name, they only have to chage a maximum of three redirect. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be left at Stefan cel Mare as in the romanian name making it far more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.61.182 (talk • contribs)

Bummer...I felt all warm and fuzzy inside when this article used the Romanian name. I suppose, however, that naming conventions need to be upheld... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themill (talk • contribs)

Battleflag

link here: http://media.ici.ro/history/brod_t.htm

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 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 1. The (Russian?) item «Uliantski, Mamerualyi» is incomplete and cannot be verified. The same mistake appears in other wiki-versions of this article.--Sever Juan (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the first to gain a decisive victory

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)

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)

Broken short citations

@Borsoka: 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)

Thank you for your message. I fixed the references. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen III of Moldavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SpartaN (talk · contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is definitely broad and well-referenced. Mostly just copy editing to improve prose. While 90% of the article reads just fine, those few sentences with slight prose issues are all I'd say needs work on. Note also that I don't know anything about the history of Moldavia, and only checked to make sure the information in this article is consistent with that of our other articles on the subject: I saw no factual errors. A couple prose issues I fixed myself. Hope I'm not being too picky.

• "With the assistance of Vlad, Stephen broke into Moldavia at the head of an army of 6,000 strong in the spring of 1457."

to: With the assistance of Vlad, Stephen broke into Moldavia at the head of an army 6,000 strong in the spring of 1457.

• "Peter Aaron subsequently left Poland for Hungary and settled in Székely Land in Transylvania."

to: Peter Aaron subsequently left Poland for Hungary and settled in Székely Land, Transylvania.

• "A year later, Stephen confirmed the privileges of the merchants of Lvov..."

What are the privileges he confirmed? The right to conduct business?

• "Stephen broke into Székely Land more than once in 1461."

to: Stephen breached Székely Land multiple times in 1461. (broke into sounds more like a burglary in my opinion)

• "During the siege, Stephen was seriously wounded on his left calf, a wound that did not heal to the end of his life."

to: Stephen was seriously wounded during the siege, suffering an injury on his left calf that would never heal his entire life.

• it only needs to be mentioned that chilia is now Kiliya in Ukraine once.
• "However, neither the Pope nor other European powers sent material support to Moldavia."

to: However, neither the Pope, or any other European power, sent material support to Moldavia.

• "Stephen adopted the scorched earth policy, but he could not avoid joining a pitched battle."

to: Stephen adopted a scorched earth policy, but could not avoid a pitched battle.

• "Stephen returned to Moldavia, but left Moldavian troops behind to protect Vlad."

to: Stephen returned to Moldava, leaving Moldavian troops behind for Vlad's protection.

• "To strengthen his international position, Stephen signed a new treaty with Poland on 22 January 1479, promising Casimir IV to personally swear fealty to him in Colomeea (now Kolomyia in Ukraine) on the day that the king specified six months ahead."

to: To strengthen his international position, Stephen signed a new treaty with Poland on 22 January 1479, promising to personally swear fealty to Casimir IV in Colomeea (now Kolomyia, Ukraine) on that day specified by the king six months later.

• " He promised to again pay a yearly tribute in May 1480.[76] Taking advantage of the peace, Stephen made preparations to a new confrontation with the Ottoman Empire."

to: He promised to renew the annual tribute in May 1480 that he had stopped paying in 1473. Taking advantage of the peace, Stephen made preparations for a new confrontation with the Ottoman Empire.

• "Matthias Corvinus signed a truce for five years with Bayezid II in October 1483."

to: Matthias Corvinus signed a five-year truce with Bayezid II in October 1483. ("..signed a truce for five years.." sounds like he was signing it for five years)

• "The truce covered Moldavia, with the exception of the Moldavian ports."

to:The truce applied to all Moldavia, with the exception of the Moldavian ports.

• There's a couple citation needed tags that you should work on, but not enough to fail the article. Those sentences may very well be covered by citations at the end of the paragraphs anyway.

After these changes I'll pass the article. I recommend that after fixing the citation needed tags that you take the article to A-class. A lot of work went into the article and I never realized Moldavia defeated the Ottomans so many times. I always thought it was Poland and Venice who were the main defenders of "Christendom" after the Byzantines fell. SpartaN (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

SpartaN, thank you for your comprehensive review. I highly appreciate your hard work. I changed the text of the article mostly in accordance with your above proposals. Please let me know if any further action is needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka Looks good. Saw one instance of double negative which I just fixed myself. Will pass now.

Icon

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)

Thank you

@Dahn:, thank you for your edits which significantly improved the article. I placed some template messages in the text, because I am not sure that the sentences concerned can actually verified. I would appreciate if you could look at them. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Borsoka, they are all in the citation given, those that aren't simply matter of fact. For instance, Boia verifies not just the quote from Delavrancea, but its attribution by the populace to Stephen himself, and its popularity: "The words are those of the great orator Delavrancea and in no way those of the old ruler, but what does it matter? The image of Stephen the Great that is imprinted in public consciousness owes much more to this play than to any document of the time or scholarly monograph." My "locally" means "in Romania" (and possibly Moldova), and is used for "not throughout the world". Dahn (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your quick answer. Sorry, I think, the quote from Boia's work does not support the text in the article. It does not say that the words are "often attributed" to historical Stephen the Great. If my understanding is correct, the expression "locally" could be exactly determined to avoid misunderstanding. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it does say just that: that the words of the fictional Stephen are attributed to historical Stephen in public consciousness. But whatever. Dahn (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler? "It is generally believed" carried three citations, including from the author who rejects the theory that he was elected. Meaning that it is, for all practical purposes, an undisputed fact; the election is not. Dahn (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • If my understanding is correct, it is not a popular account, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference, for Christ? Dahn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you make difference between gossips about a politician and scholarly studies about him/her? Borsoka (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All the way, thank you for modifying the text. The new version is clear for me and is in line with the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Popular account" in no way demeans the fact that it is also an account, even though that theory only has one questionable source: Ureche. You are reading too much into this. Dahn (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1485, Stephen became a participant in the Polish–Ottoman War." This is simply one way to point to the reader that by then the two countries were at war. Stephen signed an alliance with one of them and was invaded by the other. Your request for a citation is simply unreasonable. Dahn (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen became a "participant" in the Polish-Ottoman War because he signed an alliance with Poland, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? Please note that the cited reliable sources do not write of an alliance. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, your understanding is not correct. What I want is simply to give readers a link to understand the context, and specifying that there was a war, and that Stephen was entangled in it, in no way implies that Moldavia and Poland had a working alliance (even though they did, for a year or so). My effort is to make these articles stop being autistic and be connected with each other. Dahn (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What about using the Template "See also"? Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• It sucks. I prefer integrating info into the text, if I can. And I still don't see why we can't. Dahn (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Because you have not verified it: you want to insert the text your own conclusion (which is not clear, sometimes you write of an alliance, sometime you deny it). Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • The country was invaded by the Ottomans. To theorize that this was an entirely parallel war, in a different world than Poland's, would be absurd. To theorize that an alliance is required for participation in a war is also absurd: Belgium participated in both world wars without ever meaning to or preemptively allying herself with anyone. Again, this seems to be you reading too much into things and projecting your own preferences. Dahn (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I am always absurd and stubborn when trying to avoid OR. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Have a read. Dahn (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • If my understanding is correct, you can verify that the Polish-Ottoman war broke out before Stephen's visit in Poland and Moldavia became a participant in that war? Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Nope, there is nothing in the text that would suggest that this was the order of events, and in any case it doesn't matter -- what matters is that there was a war that year. But when you claim that Stephen might have had something to do with starting that war, do you not contradict your own stubborn claim, earlier, that he was in no way involved in the war? Dahn (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • No, I do not know anything about the Polish-Ottoman war. What is clear that you put an unreferenced sentence first at the beginning of a section, and later you put it at the end, suggesting that your knowledge of the events is also limited. Borsoka (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I don't think anyone can say for certain when and how the war started -- or any war before the advent of modern diplomacy, which requires states to declare war on each other. I had put it at the top of the section, then at the end, because it doesn't matter when it started, just that at some point in the paragraph Stephen joined in, or was made to join in by an Ottoman invasion of his country. What matters to the reader is that they understand the situation in which Poland and Ottoman were -- either at war or preparing for war. Absolutely nothing in any of three versions I proposed ever stated what you claimed to have read into them: namely, that Stephen and the Poles colluded to start a war. Can you please let go of such absurdities and just read the versions instead of reading into them? Dahn (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • George C. Kohn, Dictionary of Wars, entry for "Polish-Turkish War of 1484–1504", p. 419, clearly mentions that Stephen was a participant in the war. Also note "1484" as the start date. Should I add this one-page reference just to please you? Dahn (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Yes. A single reference was all what I wanted. Borsoka (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Well I won't add it. For one, because clogging up the space with references we use for just one fact is not particularly helpful. Secondly, I hate citing tertiary references that are liekly to have many disparate mentions of Stephen for just one fact relating to him -- since I can't also verify what that book has to say about Stephen's other wars, adding the reference would simply be a record of the conflict between our obsessions, mine and yours; the reader is not served by such editing. Moreover, such details are sure to be dealt with in an expansion of that article, which cannot fail to mention Stephen at least in passing. What I have done was to administer the evidence that Stephen is seen as a participant in that war, and not just by yours truly -- but by authors who are taking the necessary step of seeing Stephen's world outside localist lenses. Dahn (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, the story is not clear for me. According to the source you referred to above the war broke out in 1484, while the title of the WP article suggests that it only started a year later. Your text says that the war was in preparation when Stephen visited Poland in 1484. What does your text mean? And what say reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Seriously, what's your problem Borsoka? Is it a personal issue with me by now? "My" text says "by then", with reference to the dates of the previous paragraph. I couldn't care less if the wikipedia article has "1485" and Kohn has "1484", because in either case by 1485 there was 'a' war. What the difference in dating suggests is simply that there is no clear date in the annals for when the war began -- you should see quotes about the 1497 campaign, where sources from the same country give quite different dates. Dahn (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • My problem is that the text is not verified. Sorry, your assumption about a war which was in preparation when Stephen visited Poland is still an example of original research. If we cannot clarify the connection between the war and Stephen's visit, we should not write of it. Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Would you quote Parry's text verifying that the war was in preparation when Stephen visited Poland? Please note that Papacostea suggest that the war between Poland and the Ottoman Empire broke out because of Stephen's visit. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • No, I won't, because I have better things to do than copy text by hand. I will say that he specifically says that Poland was getting ready for a war, if harassed by the Volga Tatars, and that Stephen specifically wanted them to intervene. I will now add from Kohn details that will substantiate this even further, including a notion that Casimir was in Colomea with his army because he had invaded the Ottoman Empire. If Papacostea says otherwise, feel free to quote him and we will note that there is a controversy in the sources. Dahn (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • If your added text from Papacostea covers the extend of what Papacostea has to say on this matter, and there is nothing more, I would like to note that it does not state what you claimed it stated: not that the war hadn't started between Poland and the Ottomans, and neither that the talks at Colomea happened before there was an actual war. Apparently, he just mentions that the Poles were reluctant (up to which year? which month?) to validate Stephen: but even so he notes something you have explicitly claimed he denies, namely that there was, in the end, an alliance. Are we done here? Dahn (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for verifying the text. Borsoka (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• You really need a citation for the fact that literature in Stephen's day was entirely Slavonic? All the manuscripts you yourself mentioned in the text are not in Romanian, do look it up. Dahn (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen contributed to the development of Old Church Slavonic literature, because the chronicles were written in that language, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? There are billions who write texts in English, but I am not convinced that all works contribute to the development of English literature. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is absurd. I simply spell out the language in which all the works were written. And yes, several sources mention that fact, including the added source which states that he influenced literature even outside Romania. But the text you take issue with never said that he indfuenced literature in Slavonic everywhere -- the link clearly refers to Church Slavonic literature in Romania. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you for providing further sources to diminish my absurd claim. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I actually added the source because it went into more relevant detail than the text we had. Dahn (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the practice of slavery: the capture of 17,000 slaves in one go is not a consolidation of the institution? The phrasing simply tells the reader that the practice existed in Romania and that he practiced slavery as well, to some record levels apparently. It links the phrase with what comes before it. The Achim citation mentions in fact that he contributed massively to the transfer of Romanies from Wallachia to Moldavia, as slaves, and that his rule saw the first ever mention of the term "slave". So your claim that it is "not in citation given" is unreasonable and contrived. Dahn (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Achim writes that the presence of Gypsy slaves in Moldavia was first recorded in 1428, but there is "documentary evidence for a permanent movement movement of Gypsies from Wallachia to Moldavia". Sorry, I cannot decide whether the 17,000 slaves allegedly brought by Stephen from Wallachia to Moldavia consolidated slavery in Wallachia based on Achim's text. What can easily be verified is the fact (namely, that slaves were brought to Wallachia). Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• That makes no sense whatsoever. He brought them to Moldavia from Wallachia, and consolidated the practice in Moldavia. This is quite plainly stated by Achim. Dahn (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • According to Achim, there was "a permanent movement of Gypsies from Wallachia to Moldavia", independently of Stephen, and he does not state that Stephen consolidated slavery in Moldavia. Anyway, we can assume that the arrival of 17,000 new slaves actually consolidated slavery. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• And also let's highlight again that the citation also refers to the portions of Achim which state that Stephen saw the first mention of the word "slave" in Moldavian annals, and that slavery in that day did not just refer to the Romanies, but also to the many Tatars he captured. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Could you quote the text form Achim proving that Stephen "endorsed" slavery? Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • It's not just Achim by this point: there are three sources saying he owned and used and colonized slaves. But even if we confine it to Achim: Stephen personally captured Gypsies from Wallachia, and Tatars from wherever, and stated in writing that they were governed by different customs and laws. Dahn (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, I have not found any text in Achim's book saying that Stephen endorsed "the notion that different laws applied to slaves". Could you quote the text? Borsoka (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • "In the Romanian principalities, there was a slaves’ law. It is mentioned in the Moldavian document of 1470 in which Stephen the Great frees Oana, a Tatar slave who had fled from Poland, as well as his children from slavery. The prince freed them from the obligations that resulted from one’s status as a slave: “let them never pay anything according to the law of the slaves and the Tatars (holopskym[i], tatarskym[i] pravom[i])”; they would be allowed to live in the country “as do all Romanians according to Romanian law (voloskym[i] zakonomi)”. Romanian law and slaves’ law were two different entities. Romanian law and slaves’ law were two different entities. Slaves had their own legal status that was different from that of the Romanian population." (pages 35--36, which, though you claim not to see them, are also in the citation). Moreover, we have citations for the fact that he owned slaves and took slaves by the thousands, not just from among Gypsies. You are being obtuse. Dahn (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the legal status of freemen and slaves was quite different. Do you think that before Stephen's rule (let's say in 1428 when slavery was first documented in Moldavia) there was no difference between slaves and freemen? Could you cite the text proving that it was Stephen who endorsed "the notion that different laws applied to slaves". Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your problem is one of basic logic. Sauing that he endorsed it in no way is a claim that he was the only one who endorsed it. Dahn (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, my problem is that you are trying to emphasize something which is not emphasized in the allegedly cited source. Achim states that (1) Stephen captured 17,000 Gypsies, and also Tatar slaves; and (2) the first extant Moldavian document containing the term "slave" was issued by Stephen. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• And (3), that he issued at least one document verifying that he had laws separate for slaves and non-slaves. Regardless of whether this was also backed by his predecessors and successors, it is a fact that relates to him as well. Dahn (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC

Sorry, I did not find the text verifying that it was Stephen who specifically had laws for slaves. Could we say that Macron endorsed civil rights, just because he has not changed the provisions governing those rights in the French constitution? Absurd claim, to borrow your favorit adjective from you. Borsoka (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Except that there was no constitutional system under Stephen, just whatever the lord chose to enforce, and there is a specific document tying him to that endorsement. Waste more of my time, why don't you? Dahn (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to share your assumptions, theories and conclusions with the comminuty on the Talk pages. Nevertheless, thank you for modifying the text. Now, it does not contain OR. Borsoka (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Anything to please you. Dahn (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman-Polish War

Thank you for your efforts to address my concerns, even if you reverted my edit containing the question. Sorry, I think an original synthesis do not clarify the question. You allegedly assumes that Casimir asked the Teutonic Knights to join the anti-Ottoman war before Stephen the Great sought Casimir's assistance. However, the cited source (Maasing) does not verify this assumption. Casimir may have also asked them to support him after he decided to intervene on behalf of Stephen. Furthermore, the reference to a league implies that not only the realms ruled by Casimir, but other countries also joined this coalition. What does the source you cited say about the members of this league? Finally, are you sure, based on the source, that Casimir formed the anti-Ottoman league before Stephen the Great sought his assistance against the Ottomans? Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

More pedantry. The Kohn source says outright that there was a league formed by Casimir, without specifying what members it had. You are wikilawyering beyond all common sense when you emit the demand that published sources should specifically mention what members those leagues had. Do you understand that the info about a league being formed by Poland is already covered by that reference? The Maasing source specifically mentions that the Teutons were at some point (it doesn't matter when, not to this article) members of that league, and I simply added the info because it enriches the text, not to answer your bewilderingly contrived and risible claim that we should ask of Kohn that he mention what members the league had. What sort of wording would satisfy your absurd requests, by this point? Dahn (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And yes, both sources now used for the league tidbit specifically state that this was formed before the Colomea thing. It migth have been just a symbolic league (werent all of them?), but that has absolutely no importance, nor are we expected to guess if it was or not because something in that bothers your preconceived notion that there was no such alliance -- a notion based on a blatant misreading of Papacostea, which youre yet to retract. Dahn (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you quote the text from Maasing implying that the "league" (?) was formed before the Colomea meeting? I have not found it. Sorry, my problem is that you are creating a history by arbitrarily setting the chronology of the events. We should also specify the members of the "league", because Kohn only mentions Stephen the Great, but your wording suggest that a league was formed before Stephen joined it. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing in our text that suggests this absolutely happened before Colomea, just that it happened at around that time. Or feel free to quote the part where the text says that: 'before he marched on Colomea...". And yes, both Kohn and Bain place the formation of the league in the narrative before they mention Colomea. Either this means they suggest that this happened before Colomea (as one would assume, and as you claim we do, because we also use that narrative sequence), or it means that they do not really obsess about the exact succession of events (just like the the sources you were using placed Stephen's sending for doctors in Venice to before he stopped paying tribute to the Porte), or, maybe, that nobody knows for sure (just like nobody knows for sure if Stephen himself sacked Lviv, and when). Either way, we follow usage in the sources. When you find one specifically saying that the league was formed after, we'll have something to talk about; otherwise, it is your theory, sourced from thin air, versus published sources. (Maasing does not go into the subject at any length; Maasing however mentions that the Teutons were reluctantly attracted into the war, in or before 1485. Which is exactly what we use him for in that context, as I'm sure you can read for yourself.) Dahn (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the text, but I am more an more convinced that Kohn's POV is quite special. Even the new source you added, Pilat, shows that the loss of the two ports was the reason of Polish intervention. I understand that you want to put the wl "[Polish–Ottoman War (1485–1503)", for this reason we should not change history. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was you who were lecturing me about personal theories and how I'm welcome to discuss them on talk pages, rather than the article. Dahn (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

But if I'm permitted this comment: people who rely on texts authored by Securitate associates and by convicted pedophiles should perhaps not throw stones at other sources. Dahn (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you do not deny any more that most reliable sources do not refer to an anti-Ottoman coalition before the Colomea meeting. We shoul not refer to it either. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is OR at its best. "They don't refer" becomes "it happened after Colomea", when in fact it means that most sources simply do not mention the larger context. Both sources who mention it explicitly mention it before Colomea, which I think it is reasonable to assume means that the fact occurred before Colomea (or else I see nothing in the sources telling me that it happened after); however (and this is where I think you should concentrate your understanding) nothing in the text we have suggests that either one happened before the other, no more than the sources do. They narrate one before the other, we do as well. The "before" in the narration may mean a chronological succession, but also a hierarchy of narrative importance or nothing at all. Your persistent reading that they should necessarily reflect chronology just because they are narrated in that way is based on nothing at all, but is becoming tiresome by this point. Yes: the league quite possibly began before Colomea, at least until we find a source saying definitely that it happened after (you found one? cite it); no: listing one thing before the other does not necessarily imply that it happened before. Dahn (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources do not mention the wider context, why we should mention it? Publishing our own interpretation of history is not our task as editors of WP. Actually, the source mention the wider context: the occupation of the two ports by the Ottomans threatened Poland, thus Casimir who had never intervened in the Moldavian-Ottoman conflict became ready to support Stephen. Consequently, the wider context is already included in the article and we do not need to expand it. Borsoka (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Some reliable sources do not mention it (why? it's the authors' business); others, also reliable, plainly do; still others, of those you claim do not mention it, actually do, just not in that straightforward manner (Papacostea, for instance). Your claim that we should not mention it because not all do is not just bewildering as an exercise in sophistry, it is explicitly against wikipedia recommendations, as Ive shown you. Also, let's note that nothing in your account, that the occupation of the ports generated the war, contradicts anything in the text -- which, even when mentioning earlier clashes, suggests that the war also started in 1484 or 1485. Because the occupation is still before Colomea. Take a deep breath and actually read what you're "correcting". Dahn (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting that the text should be changed. I think that this part of the article should be changed, because it is a little bit confusing, but I think now you understand what was my problem. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I never had any problem with the text being changed, in fact I prefer that you change it directly instead of tag-bombing it. The problem here is that, as noted and outlined below, at least two sources (granted, not Parry) suggest, or even spell out, that both the war and the alliance existed before Colomea. This is not a claim I am making, nor saying it is ultimately right; my point is that if you have something contradicting them, you should come up with a quote from a reliable source, not pass your own theories and "questions" about the validity of either as sources. Because, you know: OR. Dahn (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more things.

1. Please give it a rest with your crusade against "possibly" and your theory about what it "suggests". Nothing on WP:WEASEL suggests the word is to be avoided, and it frankly is especially contrived to claim that using it implies that we question the source. I use "possibly" for when the source says "possibly", and there ain't nothing wrong with that.

No, the cite source does not say "possibly". Nevertheless, thank you for accepting the need of change. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Can I at least put the info about Ciceu and Cetatea in succession boxes? We can use "owner" or "castellan" or what have you to describe his title. Dahn (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? He was not the ruler of the two domains. Are Queen Elizabeth's all private estates listed in the infobox of the article about her? Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be unwieldy. This one is not. "Why?" Because it is historically relevant, as noted by your own addition of the info in the lead. Dahn (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we list all private domains of the monarchs in the succession boxes? I think it would be absurd, to borrow your favorite phrase. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I have used an infobox which is specifically designed for that tells you that, where possible, yes we should. Dahn (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I won't add anything on that topic anymore. In fact I have half a mind to let you own this article and be done with it. Apparently the scholarship I added is not up to your "can't-speak-Romanian-and-will-use-Treptow-and-Watts-as-sources" level. Dahn (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You are taking everything at a personal level. Actually, I am convinced that you think you are the owner of the article, that is why you are unable to acknowledge that some of your edits cannot be verified. If you do not want to edit that part of the article, I will modify it. Borsoka (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is you who are behaving like the owner, and it is you who claim that your concoctions should be taken into account as "failed verification". But regardless: I have been more than constructive here, and I have given you the closest possible phrasing to the sources, even though I view it as highly redundant by this point. Where you claimed SYNTH, I gave you a paraphrase from the author who says that Poland was already in a state of war with the Ottomans before Colomea. This and every other source that goes into that level of detail says the same thing. Dahn (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand what WP:SYNTH is and isn't. Having two facts discussed in one phrase, where they are both sourced separately and the sources do not contradict each other, is not SYNTH, just like using "possibly" is not WEASEL.

Also, please have the courtesy of waiting until I'm done with at least quoting one source before you start spamming your tags. This article passed GA with ridiculous grammatical errors, surely it doesn't itch and burn that you would have to tolerate info you find questionable for at most a couple of hours. Dahn (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concept of WP:SYNTH. You connected Kohn's concept of a "league" with Tatar raids against Poland, although none of the sources cited verify this connection. I have not edited the article for more than 24 hours. Please try to understand that articles cannot be expropriated for days. Borsoka (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

By this point, you are misrepresenting the sources, claiming that only Kohn refers to the league. No, I have not connected "the concepts", I have simply connected the events into one innocuous phrase. You are getting extremely entrenched.

Verifying my last edits will clearly show you that I was trying to add more from one source, and was not done with it. I had a tag requesting that you wait until I'm done, yet you deliberately chose to create edit conflicts. I also haven't edited the article for hours on end, but in this case it takes me a while to finish what I believe you can agree are constructive edits. Dahn (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you quote the sources referring to an anti-Ottoman "league" before the meeting at Colomea? Yes, I agree that 95% of your edits highly improved the article. The problem is that you are unable to accept that 5% of your edicts should be changed in order to be fully in line WP policies. Instead of trying the solve the problems, you are making ad personam remarks. Actually, it is really funny. Borsoka (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

They talk of a league, and they place that before Colomea, and in fact they say that the march on Colomea was an act of war. I can't vouch that this means it absolutely happened before Colomea (though I probably does mean that, I'll give the benefit of the doubt). But try and comprehend this, for the last time: there is nothing in our text that says it happened before Colomea. Just that it happened. Really, make that cognitive effort. Dahn (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I would like to avoid that readers of the article should make cognitive efforts to understand what happened when. That is why I suggest that the text should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Modified to what??? Make a suggestion that does not involve OR about how to mention the league in the absence of more precise detail about "what happened when". Dahn (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We should only respect the cited sources. For instance, if a scholar (Parry) refers to the years 1485-87, we should not pretend that he writes of the years 1483-1484 ([3]). I think this is a quite simple approach and none of us needs to make major cognitive efforts to follow this rule. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Youre right about Parry. What about the question I actually asked? Dahn (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, I am working on an other article. I will modify the text about the 1480s in this article a couple of days later. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have double-checked. Bain, loc. cit., specifically refers to Poland's accession to an anti-Ottoman league before Colomea, and after the fall of both ports, argues that the Poles actually "drove the Turks out of Moldavia" before even getting to Colomea, and then notes that the league was "frustrated" by Corvinus' double-dealing. Kohn also states that Poland formed a league and then drove the Turks from Moldavia, and then advanced on Colomea. If you have a source that expressly contradicts these, use it and we will note the controversy. If not, please call it a day. Dahn (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Bain must be a highly reliable source, because he wrote his book almost 110 years ago. I clarified that the Ottomans were driven out of Moldavia even before they invaded it, because I know that we should emphasize that Poland had formed a league with unspecified members even before the Colomea meeting. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You have no right to censor the article because you could not find a source that agrees with *your* theories; if other sources contradict what Bain says, cite *them*. But you cant, can you now? Dahn (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If Bain is "unreliable", it should be easy for you to find a source that presents a different account (no, not one that doesn't present any account: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Do it. In the meantime, we have two sources of very different periods saying the same thing, and your theory that what historians said happened didnt happen, because... because who cares. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Communicating with you is really entertaining. It is really funny that you want to treat each content dispute at a personal level. No, I do not want to censor anybody. I do not want to push any POV either. I only want to improve the article. Please remember that Papacostea clearly writes that "Poland had constantly kept aloof from Moldavia's struggle against the Ottoman Empire; she had witnessed with indifference ... the two Turkish campaigns against Moldavia. But the danger posed by the militray presence of the Turks at the mouths of the Danube and the Dnieper, as well as the prospects of bringing Moldavia under Polish suzerainty, determined King Casimir to take action against the Ottoman Porte. Stephen had no choice but to accept again the most oppressing form of vassalage, ... that took place on September 15, 1485, at Kolomyya... Having got Plish military support, Stephen succeeded in driving out the Turks." (Papacostea (1996), pp. 58-59.) Ciobanu likewise writes, "[the conquest of Chilia and Cetatea Alba in 1484] created a new political and military situation in the Lower Danube dangerous to both Hungary and Poland. Neither of these powers went father than writing diplomatic petitions to the Sultan. But the diplomats of Casimir IV were more emphatic... Thus Stefan cel Mare was obliged to break the political equilibrium between Hungary and Poland .... This was done by his presence at Colomeea and his signing the act of vassalage towares King Casimir IV ... [who] bound himself ... to protect Moldavia borders and not to sign a peace treaty without the knowledge of Stefan cel Mare if it concerned Moldavia and its borders." (Ciobanu (1991), pp. 49-50.) Both modern sources make it clear that Poland did not intervene before the Colomea meeting. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources contradicts Bain, and neither says that Poland intervened only after Colomea. They both say that the conquest of Chilia etc. long before Colomea prompted a Polish intervention (which is what Bain also says), and they both also say that at Colomea Stephen and the king struck a deal. The rest is your inference and, again, your misreading of the sources. Dahn (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If you tag Bain again while we're having this conversation, I'll respond by tagging every instance where you used Treptow or another questionable source. After all, your claim that Bain is unreliable surely has to be balanced out against a "historian" who served as a PR agent for the Securitate and went to jail for child abuse. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, you can tag any of "my" sources. Do you think this is the way of improving the article? However, to borrow one of your favorite expressions, "really, make that cognitive effort" and read the above quotes. They clearly say, that Poland did not intervene before Colomea. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the only thing that would move the article forward is if you step down from your entrenched position and stop acting as the owner. And no, neither source says that: neither contradicts that there was a war in preparation before, neither says that there was no league formed, neither says that only after Colomea did the war start. They both say that Stephen and Casimir only had an alliance after Colomea (who disputes this?), and one of them, Ciobanu, claims that the Poles mounted an effort that was only or largely diplomatic -- which is not a fact, but an assessment of facts. Dahn (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Owner of the article? Me? Please try to remain serious. Please also read again and again the quoted texts. Papacostea explicitly stats that Casimir had not intervened before Colomea. You presented this statement as a POV, although earlier you stated that you do not want to cite Kohn (who contradicts Papacostea and Ciobanu), because it is a tertiary source ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all: Papacostea says no such thing. Not one iota of that text as you yourself quoted it says anything resembling "Casimir had not intervened before Colomea". In fact, he says that the occupation of the ports (long before Colomea!) prompted Casimir's intervention -- he doesn't go into more detail than that, and certainly does not invalidate the account about the league. And your creative reading also applies to my own posts, apparently: I said I did not wish to use Kohn not because it is tertiary, but because it probably has more to say about Stephen than that one entry, and I personally dislike citing books that say much more on the subject than gbooks allows me to read. It seems dishonest to me, but evidently not to you; either way, it is a preference, and your insistence that I find a source (to state outright what you for some reason refuse to believe) prompted me to use it after all. No, I will not disregard what sources say because you disagree with them, that is simply not an option. Dahn (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. When writing that neither Matthias Corvinus nor Casimir IV "went father than writing diplomatic petitions to the Sultan" after the Ottoman occupation of the two ports, Ciobanu implicitly writes of the organization of an anti-Ottoman league in accordance with the 110-year-old book? Or the writing of diplomatic petitions also implies that he expelled the Ottomans from Moldavia even before Colomea, as it is stated in the 110-year-old book? Borsoka (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is you claiming that's what it means. Moreover, his vague opinion that there were nothing but diplomatic efforts does not cancel the fact, true or false as it may ultimately be, that there was a league. Ciobanu's statement may just as well mean that he doesn't know about the league, or even that he dismisses it also as a diplomatic effort (like, say, the Allies during the Phony War). All of this is within the realm of the possible from that which you have cited, none of it is a rejection of the claim that there were a war and a league before Colomea. And Papacostea, who you repeatedly claim also verifies your statements, doesn't even say that much. Dahn (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are sure that there was a league, because a tertiary source (that you did not initially wanted to cite) say of a league. However, you cannot list the members of the league. You are also sure that a remark in a 110-year-old book about a Polish campaign against the Ottomans in Moldavia is reliable, althou it is not mentioned in any other cited sources. On the other hand, you easily ignore clear statements about the absence of Poland from the armed conflicts between the Ottomans and Moldavia before the Colomea meeting. And you present the last views as a scholarly POV. Sorry, I cannot follow your logic. Borsoka (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to perform any one of those queries. This is what the sources say, and the sources you claim contradict them do not. Find sources that do contradict them, add them to the article. In the meantime: WP:TRUTH. Dahn (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What queries? Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That I make Bain list the members of the league, or else (you claim) the league didn't exist. And other such absurdities. I repeat: there is nothing in neither Ciobanu nor Papacostea that would contradict the existence of a league or the preparation of war before Colomea. Even Ciobanu's claim cannot be read as a denial, just as a claim that the Poles didn't do enough etc. Of course, the presence of any claim about poor Stephen being left alone to defend Europe etc., in a book published by Treptow, should raise eyebrows (it is a core national-communist thesis); but I don't aim to have it removed -- I just feel that, when compared to Bain and Kohn, who simply list what they see as events and facts in succession, this opinion expressed by Ciobanu is the more doubtful, particularly since it is also vaguer (doesn't explicitly deny that there was a league, may not even be aware that there was one, just states his opinion that Polish efforts were not enough). Now, that aside, concentrate on this bit: even as he claims that Polish efforts were not enough, Ciobanu validates the claim that Poland was prompted to act against the Ottomans by the capture of the ports, which is long before Colomea; Papacostea, who never even says what you claim he says, also verifies that the ports were the reason why Poland began the anti-Ottoman effort. So it is entirely possible that all narratives are compatible: Poland prepared for war (what our text currently says); the effort was haphazard and symbolic by X and Y standards, sufficient and warlike by W and Z standards. The rest is an apparent controversy about dating events, which we can and already do note in the article, and which probably cannot be solved (or not without original research) in relation to very arcane primary sources about a very muddled couple of months, in the absolute, marginally literate, backyard of Europe. Can, would, might you reflect a bit on this issue, instead of returning over and over again to the same bends in the conversation? Dahn (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Deepening that statement: As I believe I have shown you, wikipedia actually recommends placing localist references in a generic context, because localist sources may not bother with that. We seem to have a textbook case here. On the one hand, we have Ciobanu's vague claim -- which, again: does not actually deny the Polish war effort, just minimizes it, and doesn't explicitly contradict any of Bain's claims; we also have Papacostea, which is even vaguer. Both sources have a local focus, and Ciobanu can be said to have a nationalist focus. By comparison, Bain and Kohn are third-party authors in non-participating countries, writing generic histories in which Moldavia is not the main focus, but a minor cog. Looking at wikipedia recommendations, it is actually they and their account we should prioritize, if anything. Dahn (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must apply your basic elements of your communication, because you are obviously unable to understand other approaches. There are two sharply contradicting statements: one claims that Poland was involved in a war against the Ottoman before the Colomea meeting, the other does not say this, but explicitly says that Poland had always wanted to maintain its neutrality in the Ottoman-Moldavian conflict. Your assumptions about the secret motifs of authors are as irrelevant as your assumptions about my or other editors' hidden agenda. Your claim that a book published 110 year ago and a tertiary source should be preferred to modern books dedicated to the history of the period and territory in question is absurd even if you sink into wikilawyering. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"The other does not say this" =/= "the other says something else". This is basic logic, Borsoka. (Also, it's motives, not motifs. And you are the one upholding a book published by Treptow, who is at the very least, as noted by serious scholarship, a promoter of nationalist theses, against basic facts outlined in scholarly works with no discernible bias. Not to mention your fibbing: whatever theory you have about Bain being unreliable, he is not the only source explicitly saying that the war had started before Colomea. Kohn plainly says that there was a war in 1484, and even youir sources suggest that the events of 1484 are the reason why there was a war between Poland and the Ottomans.) Dahn (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A query

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)

• Also, your citation from Freely is unusable, because you failed to relevant page number(s), or at least a chapter, and it's a large book. Clean it up or I'll remove it. Dahn (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you for addressing Grabarczyk. Now: how about Freely? Dahn (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Imperial titles

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Treptow

Could you explain your edit? ([5]) Why do you think that Ciobanu (1991) is not unreliable? He wrote in a book edited by Treptow. Or what about Jonathan Eagles, he referred to Treptow in his book? Should we delete all references to them? Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If you allow yourself to police Bain, even when his account was validated by other sources and his reputation was never once questioned, it is quite reasonable to assume that we should apply at least the same standard to anything touched by Treptow (and Watts). Evidently: no, we do not police against Eagles, because a historian's job is to review even questionable sources and publish his own conclusions as to their validity (for instance, a historian will use Hitler, not just Churchill, as a source). Dahn (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. It is a kind of revenge. Do you think this approach and behaviour is in line with WP policies? Please do not duplicate the debate about Bain's reliability here. It can be read under the previous subtitle. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a revenge, it's consistency. If you think that Bain is unreliable because he disgarees with you (!), have the intellectual courage to look into the objective (un)reliability of your own sources. Dahn (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

With me? I am not Papacostea. Please do not duplicate the debate. It is above. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Papacostea says no such thing, it is you who state that claim. I will "duplicate" what I feel like duplicating, thanks.

To clarify further: Personally, I view Treptow as marginally reliable, at least for innocuous, though his various issues of reputation (not just his time in jail, but also his national-communist and neofascist links, as well as his cavorting with the Securitate) may make even those embarrassing for wikipedia. I always found it yucky that you felt the need to rely on him, but it was not a major issue. However, when you yourself pontificate about the reliability of other sources and introduce claims that we should find "other sources" for much more innocuous facts and to replace much more respectable authors, it is natural and logical that we discuss what Treptow is doing in this article. We remove Bain and keep Treptow? Dahn (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, if you want to duplicate the debate, I will quote Papacostea's text, which clearly contradicts Bain's claim that Poland intervened in the Moldavian-Ottoman conflict before the Colomea meeting: "Poland had constantly kept aloof from Moldavia's struggle against the Ottoman Empire; she had witnessed with indifference ... the two Turkish campaigns against Moldavia. But the danger posed by the militray presence of the Turks at the mouths of the Danube and the Dnieper, as well as the prospects of bringing Moldavia under Polish suzerainty, determined King Casimir to take action against the Ottoman Porte. Stephen had no choice but to accept again the most oppressing form of vassalage, ... that took place on September 15, 1485, at Kolomyya... Having got Plish military support, Stephen succeeded in driving out the Turks." (Papacostea (1996), pp. 58-59.) OK. I already understood, that it was a form of revenge against me. Nevertheless, if you think, Treptow is not reliable, you should list your arguments under the reassesment subtitle below. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It might contradict that claim, and we could note that the sources contradict each other on the point of Polish assistance to Moldavia, but it certainly does not contradict that Poland was at war with the Ottomans, nor that there was a league, both before Colomea. This was your claim and it is blatanatly false. Dahn (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC) which are

Yes, you say based on a source (Bain) which claims that Poland expelled the Ottomans from Moldavia before the Colomae meeting, and based on an other source (Kohn) that he himself did not want to cite, because it is a tertiary source. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

NO, you added that to the text, I kept it and properly attributed it to Bain, wrong or right as he may be. Two sources say that there was a league before Colomea, and I have explained why I found it redundant; I used it because you asked me to, after you claimed that we must have a citation for the wear starting before Stephen got in, now you're claiming I should not have used it. Enough with the shenanigans, we all have better stuff to do. Dahn (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. If there is a contradiction between sources (Bain, Kohn) on the one hand, and other sources on the other hand, we should not hide it. Would you please try to concentrate the debates on one subject under one subtitle. This is the subtitle for Treptow. Sorry, I will not answer your remarks about other subjects under this subtitle. Borsoka (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And I did not hide the contradiction. However, you use that contradiction to claim that Bain is wrong about the start of the war and the existence of a league, though neither of these is contradicted by the sources you cite against Bain. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[6] Borsoka (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Dahn (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[7] Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reassessment

Stephen III of Moldavia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept I read the below and feel dumber for it. I wish editors would take their disputes to the right place and not bludgean each other so much. This is not about whether the article is good or not and makes no reference to the criteria. It is a dispute over the reliability of a single source. We are not the reliable source noticeboard. Take the dispute there, make your case as succinct as possible, let uninvovled editors get a word in and then you can come back here to try and delist the article if it still needs to be done. AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was recently granted the rank good article. An experienced editor expressed his doubts about the reliability of a number of cited sources, written by Kurt W. Treptow. Sorry, @Dahn:, I did not know that leading Romanian historians regularly published their works with such unreliable authors, or allowed him to edit their publications. Borsoka (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that you did not verify Treptow's (and Watts') reputation before you used them as sources. Dahn (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am extremelly sorry for not verifying it, but Treptow's books were published by leading Romanian academic institutions and he co-published with the leading Romanian historians. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if you could summarize why do you think that his books do not qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes. This ([8]) explanation is quite strange. Do you think books edited by Treptow could be regarded reliable? What do you think, historians publishing their views in books edited by Treptow could be cited? If they did not verify Treptow's reputation, can we say they are reliable? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing "leading" about the Center for Romanian Studies. The other publishing houses are alright, I guess, but everyone makes mistakes, and it was after all allegedly Treptow's mission to make himself and his national-communist associates seem innocuous. Dahn (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Do you think books edited by Treptow could be regarded reliable? What do you think, historians publishing their views in books edited by Treptow could be cited? If they did not verify Treptow's reputation, can we say they are reliable?" Books edited by Treptow should be just as suspect, by my view, because we're no longer in a position to say what is and isn't reliable in them. But you were asking me (also) about books which cite Treptow, and the claim that we might end up rejecting them is far-fetched: a historian has the job of discerning between reliable and unreliable in dubious sources, something wikipedia cannot and will not do; a historian using his critical lens on sources we deem unreliable is not himself unreliable. Dahn (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your remark that I should have verified Treptow's reliability. You may not know, but I do not live in Romania. I do not have knowledge of Romanian historians. Based on your remark, I thought that it is a well-known fact in Romania that Treptow is an unreliable source, and scholars who cooperated with him are also regarded careless, like me. Would you share your arguments with the community why do you think Treptow's books and the books edited by him are not reliable sources? Sorry, I think this argumentation ([9]) is still strange and unusual. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The controversy relating to Treptow is international, so no. WADR, I don't really care what you believe is strange and unusual. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct you cannot argue that Treptow is an unreliable source. Could you explain this edit: [10]. Was it only an act of vandalism? Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, is your use of tags vandalism? That refers to the book being edited by Watts, a similarly problematic historian, know for instance for books which deny the Holocaust in Romania and claim that Ceaușescu was framed. Dahn (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you did not mention that Watts was the reason, because you only mentioned Treptow. Interestingly, leading Romanian historians, like Ioan-Aurel Pop publicated their views in books together with such strange personalities. Are you sure about that fact? Sorry, but for me it is uncredible. I cannot imagine that historians publish together with anybody who denies Holocaust. Do you say that Romanian historians generaly deny Holocaust? Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually did mention Watts here (just above), and I also take issue with Florin Constantiniu, another one tainted by his links with the Securitate. Mr Pop also has some bewildering political positions and associations (for instance with Protochronists), but at least he has the reputation largely untarnished beyond that. His choosing to associate with this group (back then) and with other similar groups (these days) does not elevate his reputation, and certainly does not elevate theirs. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd let others weigh in if Treptow, a convicted pedophile who praised Codreanu and Antonescu and was reportedly an agent of influence for SIE, is a reliable source, and more reliable than Bain. Dahn (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. You do not want to list your argumentation. You are still sulky. It does not make the decision easier. Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel I don't have to argue anything about the possible "reliability" of Treptow. I'll let others decide if an author with that reputation belongs as a source on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

His criminal record--and that includes him being a convinced pedophile--is irrelevant to our evaluation of him as a historian. You'd have to do a lot better than that. At best, your argument resembles the issue of Eric Gill and the creation of his fonts, which some designers refuse to use due to his crimes as a pedophile. In the end, most people choose to separate the man from his creation, and I doubt that Wikipedia's policy views things differently. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

1. The above is a comment by the permabanned User:Anittas. 2. I know Borsoka has muddied the waters when he claimed that the only objection to Treptow is his criminal record, but I actually referred to that in addition to things which make Treptow grossly unreliable, as cited here and elsewhere: he is a Holocaust denier, a fascist admirer, an associate of national-communist cells in the secret services of the 1990s, and some other things. Glancing at what Treptow is cited for in the Wiesel Report, alongside his colleague Watts, will be more than sufficient. Need I paste it blockquotes here as well? Dahn (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I never stated that "the only objection to Treptow is his criminal record". Please remember, I am not from Romania and it was hard to believe that leading Romanian historians cooperated with Holocaust deniers. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You had stated that the objection I raised to Treptow was relating to his criminal record (in fact, initially you had phrased it so that it would appear I am the one accusing him of pedophila), when you opened up discussion of this issue on several pages, and pinged me everywhere. Although I had clearly said that there are several major objections to Treptow, including his neofascism, you chose to misquote me, and I have since wasted a day or two answering to two respectable editors and the character Anittas above, as to why "pedophila doesn't make Treptow unreliable". I propose you did this deliberately, to soften the objections against Treptow. Dahn (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that it was you, who initially emphasized Treptow's crime. Borsoka (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I have, and I will again. For reasons I have explained every time I mentioned it: they may contribute to his unreliability (particularly with their political implications), but they are just one piece in his "file". You have persistently chosen to ignore the other issues. Let's hear it then: based on the other issues, do you find him reliable? As long as you yourself don't, all of this is really sterile. As long as you do, please explain to us how and why. Dahn (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment feels somehow irrelevant to the subject. It's equal to someone joining a discussion where you are involved and accusing you of using a second Wikipedia account (Ano...) to manipulate the 'content' in your favor. You said that Borsoka should've verified his sources. I googled the name of this Kurt W. Treptow and after a careful look, I found this page that accuses Treptow of something called "selective negationism". As explained on the website: "[...] in other words, it does not deny the Holocaust as having taken place ELSEWHERE but excludes ANY participation by members of one’s own nation in its perpetration." I haven't found a source or an opinion (other than yours) that claims the fellow is a Holocaust denier: if there is one, it's not an easy one to find, so you can't burden Borsoka for not verifying every single source used in an article where one does not expect its sources to be of a controversial nature. On the contrary, this article on Romanian Holocaust deniers uses Treptow's work as a source. To accuse someone of being a Holocaust denier is serious business and should be followed by a strong argument. Have you produced a strong argument for why Treptow is a Holocaust denier? If you had such a source, all you needed to do was to simply write something to the effect that, 'Treptow should not be considered as a credible source because of [argument], according to this [source] and this [source]. And that would be the end of it. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I must apologize. I find it extremely difficult to read Dahn's posts to the end and I ignored the second half of his post where he mentions this Wiesel Report. I had to go back to see if missed something of worth. I found "Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" and it doesn't say, nor does it allude to, that Treptow is a Holocaust denier. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course it does, I gave the full quote below, and anyone can verify it even in your link, Anittas. The Report also notes that he published and circulated false documents, in association with Buzatu and Coja. I have never said that he denied the Holocaust everywhere, but that he denied the Holocaust in Romania. While this may not be as serious a charge, it is interesting to see sophists argue about "he's still reliable, because we like him." Dahn (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wiesel report states the following: "Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, for long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities." It goes on to mention Treptow's meddling with what appears to be false documents. His objective was, as I see it, not to deny that the Holocaust occurred in Romania and Romanian-held territories, but to relieve the Romanian officials of responsibility for the killings. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever he did, and however you want to call it, it is quite clearly incompatible with reliability. Affirm your conclusion, then: Trptow is reliable because, though he falsified documents and praised fascists, he didn't explicitly deny that Holocaust crimes happened in Romania -- just attributed them to fairies and leprechauns, which is a-okay. Enough wikilawyering, Anittas. (I won't answer to the claim that I have a second account as Anonimu, not least of all because it is plainly idiotic. If anyone seriously has any doubts about this, they can checkuser me all they want.) Dahn (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't come here to evaluate Treptow's reliability, DA(h)n. I came here to refute your argument which I believe is poorly structured. At first I thought you were using his crimes as a pedophile to discredit his reliability. Later you clarified that the main problem is with his falsification, or misuse, of sourced material, along with his Holocaust denial. As far as I've seen, Treptow is not a Holocaust denier--not for the Holocaust in Romania or elsewhere. Treptow was attempting to relieve the Romanian administration of responsibility. The difference between these two things are substantial, but then again, precision was never your forte: not as D, nor as A.

It's your duty, as an editor, to remain clear in your argument and not leave any room for misunderstanding. You didn't need to bring in his pedophile crimes to further discredit him--it's not like the guy was running for president. It was enough with what the report mentioned about him. That's all you needed to do, but now look at this page. It's a mess! Perhaps it's a representation of some intertwined thoughts... --Cei Trei (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"I didn't come here to evaluate Treptow's reliability" -- let's stop right there; this is an admission that you came here to muddy the waters, insinuate doubts about my standing as an editor, and harass me, the latter of which is about 50% of your edits on wikipedia (here, for instance). As for the page being a mess: it was arguably a mess when we started using Treptow as a trusted source, not when/because I brought that up. Dahn (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not an admission of anything. Allow me to be more clear. I don't think you are able to see things clearly; and the more complex things become, the more confused you become, regardless of the subject at hand. It was therefore a moral obligation for me to intervene in an article that I'm interested in. I highly doubt that 50% of my edits pertain to you. Not even if we count my edits on Ano... --Cei Trei (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough, Anittas. Dahn (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I sought assistance from the relevant Wikiproject ([11]). I think this can be a serious issue. We should not refer to historians who deny Holocaust or cooperate with pedofiles or Nazis. However, we should make sure that this is the case. Borsoka (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I also sought assistence from WP:RS [(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&type=revision&diff=793275524&oldid=793002075)]. Borsoka (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Some facts:

• Kurt W. Treptow
  • pedophile: Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Treptow was the director of Center for Romanian Studies in Iasi, so it terms of reputation, CRS would be a circular reference.
• Larry L. Watts:
  • Who says he is Holocaust denier?
  • Indee, he is described as historical revisionist: "Another supporter of the official Romanian history was the American Larry Watts, author of a book called Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu." (O Casandra a Romaniei: Ion Antonescu si lupta pentru reforma: 1918-1941, 1994)

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Treptow (a convicted and jailed pedophile, not just an accused one) is also questioned as an author, for his links with neofascist and national-communist groups -- which is also an accusation brought up against Watts. Their (quite serious) critics suggest that they acted as legitimating agents for a political and historiographic school which gives the veneer of credibility to the nationalist synthesis of the late Ceaușescu era. The accusation, for instance, is that Treptow's child abuse was known and condoned by his contacts in the crypto-communist cell of Iași, and by some in the post-communist secret services (the same services who repressed democratic protests), because he lent them credibility; and that Treptow agreed to join in the charade precisely because the authorities granted him access to victims.

This for instance is an article outlining the case against Treptow and his associates, published by a respected literary critic and journalist in the leading literary magazine of Romania. Running it through google translate will probably clarify enough of the meaning. Highlights include his links with ultranationalists, open praise for the fascist leader Codreanu, and apparent lack of scholarly credentials (contrasting his intense promotion by a select group of Romanian institutions, all with the same agenda and connections). This is Treptow, not just Watts.

For the record, I do not believe that all authors who published with Watts and Treptow should be automatically seen as unreliable/unquotable. I do however have to ask if the books which have Watts and Treptow as editors of coauthors can be seen as RSes, regardless of whether other authors are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As for Watts and the Holocaust, also consider Paul A. Shapiro or Michael Shafir, and the Wiesel Report. Both of the latter also discuss Treptow and his "work". Dahn (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Irina Livezeanu for the very book used in the Stephen article. Dahn (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that historians who cooperated with an author who denied Holocaust could be cited? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Because they do not automatically share the guilt, and because there is nothing to suggest that they themselves were/are Holocaust deniers -- just people who made an inept choice. I personally could live just fine without citing them altogether, but this is me trying to define an objective standard. Dahn (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This distinction seems to be quite subjective. Irina Livezeanu did not make difference between Holocaust deniers, pedofiles and other authors when reviewing their common book. Why do you think we should distinguish them based on the same review you referred to above? Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know or care that we should, I can live with either situation. But here's a thing: by that standard, Livezeanu's review should render the whole book regardless of the individual authors, unreliable (the Wiesel report also condemns strongly some of the claims advanced in that book). Which is precisely what I was advancing as a possibility here, for this and other cases where one/several of the authors/editors/publishers are discredited: that we could refrain from citing those books altogether. Should this also refer to the other books that those authors published without Treptow, Watts etc.? Read my lips: I don't know, I don't care, I defer judgment on that to whomever is looking into this. Dahn (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Even if reading your lips always surprises me: you was the one who drew our attention to the issue during a content debate, but you are unwilling to help us to understand the situation. Sorry for disturbing you. I will not any more in connection with this issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot possibly summarize the situation better then the sources I pointed you to here and in other places where you opened up discussions. As for the rest: I responded to your questions and presented the solutions. If we decide Treptow and Watts are unreliable, we can either (1) cite (presumably with caution) sources that also have other authors/editors; or, (2) not cite those books at all, but cite other books which have authors that associated with Treptow and Watts (be it for lack of information, lack of cognition, carelessness, or collusion -- doesn't matter), as long as Watts and Treptow are not authors/editors of those books; or, (3) not cite any books by authors who once associated with Watts or Treptow. I lean toward (2), but, for Christ, understand: it is not my choice to make, nor do I impose this on anyone. Get it? Dahn (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, since there are some editors who still feign shock at being told that Treptow is not just a former convict, but an unreliable former convict, here's a quick review of just one of the sources discussing his scholarly credentials. The Wiesel Commission report, which is signed by tens of historians, including Watts and Treptow's one-time co-editor Scurtu, mentions a book authored by Treptow and Holocaust denier Gheorghe Buzatu:

[Holocaust revisionists] started by presenting excerpts from what they claimed was the 1955 testimony of the former leader of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, Wilhelm Filderman, before a Swiss court. The document has never been produced and whether it really exists is doubtful. The alleged testimony had been mentioned for the first time in a 1994 volume in an editor's note written by American historian Kurt Treptow, who was residing in Romania. Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, had long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities. Coja wrote that it was from this tome that he had first learned about the existence of the Swiss 'testimony.' According to Treptow, the document could be found in the archives of the Buzatu-managed Iași Center for European History and Civilization. However, Buzatu was eventually forced to admit that the alleged 'testimony' had been simply lifted from an article published in the tabloid Baricada. The tabloid's editors claimed to have received it from Matei Cazacu, a historian of Romanian origins born in France. Upon being contacted by the Theodor Wexler, the vice president of the Filderman Foundation, Cazacu declined any knowledge of the 'document.' ... Treptow ... would again cite from it (while avoiding indicating the source) in Kurt Treptow (ed.), A History of Romania (Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1995), pp. 485, 499-500. This tome was massively disseminated abroad by the Romanian Cultural Foundation, which enlisted the help of Romanian embassies for the purpose. Several Romanian officials and some historians were forced to face an embarrassing situation in 2002, when Treptow was put on trial and sentenced for pedophilia. (pages 357-358 in 2004 edition).

The same Report, on Watts:

Also important was the role of Iosif Constantin Drăgan, a former Iron Guard sympathizer, who became a millionaire in the West and later a persona grata with Romania's dictator. Having metamorphosed into Antonescu's most fierce advocate, Drăgan contributed to the campaign waged abroad by the regime to rehabilitate the Marshal and recruited domestic and foreign historians into the rehabilitation drive. Among them were Mihai Pelin, Gheorghe Buzatu, and Larry Watts. (page 348) ... Larry Watts and Mircea Ionnițiu turned Irving [i. e. David Irving] into a legitimate and respectable scholarly authority by citing his work in arguments meant to exonerate Antonescu. (page 362) ... Nor have only Romanians embraced the argument [that Antonescu saved Jews]. According to Larry L. Watts, a U.S. historian who resides in Bucharest, the Marshal had been the 'de facto' protector of Jews against plans to implement the 'Final Solution,' because he shared the 'Western standards... concerning human and fundamental civic rights.' (page 373)

This is all also found in a link I already gave just above. Now you can stop pretending not to have seen it. Dahn (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And I will highlight the point: him publishing false documents to support the notion that Holocaust participant Antonescu was a great guy is just one of the issues here. His credentials and scholarship, as shown, are also doubted by serious scholars, but I frankly feel that by this point the statements in the Wiesel Report (and deepened by, say, Simon Geissbühler, C. Iordachi, or Michael Shafir) should already and in themselves raise enough red flags for any editor that is actually concerned with wikipedia's credibility. Even by abstracting his participation in denialist propaganda, or the very fact that said propaganda is denialist: the man is shown to have deliberately falsified historical records. It would be very interesting to hear you argue that he is still reliable after having done that.

If not, glance over Livezeanu, exposing the very volume Borsoka added in good faith as a source to this article, discussing its reliance on national-communist tropes and its propaganda for the fascist Iron Guard. There are also several articles in Romanian newspapers that laugh off his contributions: for instance (in Romanian) his 1986 letter to Ceaușescu and his Securitate links or his contribution to Securitate propaganda. Anglist and journalist Mircea Mihăieș also discussed the Treptow scandal in an article for the leading literary magazine (in Romanian), arguing that Treptow's rapid rise and transgressions were facilitated by his contacts in the Romanian secret services, and also noting his neofascism. His carrying water for the Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service, and especially for the shady nationalist Ioan Talpeș, was also noted by Le Temps: (in French) "An American pedophile sows trouble in Romania". This article also notes that Treptow was early on a protege of the dictator's brother and pseudohistorian, Ilie Ceaușescu, and also implies that he was only charged with pedophila, after an initial release, because the city population had had enough, and his high-ranking protectors had to step back. (Mihăieș also notes the unusual leniency Treptow received from the authorities, as does academic Tom Gallagher.) Dahn (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your last edit (during a content debate) shows that you think that books edited by Treptow are also unreliable ([12]). Is this the case? Would you please share your arguments with us? Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated over and over again: yes, I personally lean toward that. Because I believe that once a work has been shown to be authored and/or edited by a discredited person, wikipedia editors (unlike professional historians) cannot be expected to perform original research and decide based on it which parts of a work under this category are/aren't reliable. The very exercise would be absurd: "Yes, David Irving is unreliable about Auschwitz, but I feel he makes a good point about Hitler." Once wikipedia identifies something as an unreliable source, it could only be used, at most, in claims it makes about itself. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Anticipating: but do I feel that Ciobanu himself is unreliable? No, most likely he isn't -- though he presumably does have a bias, he is quotable with that bias and all, and can be compared to sources saying otherwise (as we are advised to do). But I have to ask if we can still cite him through a book edited by Treptow, and therefore suspect; surely, Ciobanu's interpretation of the events can be picked up from his other vast contributions to the subject, the ones not carrying Treptow's seal of approval. But again: I defer judgment to others as to whether this is or isn't the best approach; until others weigh in, the tags stay. Dahn (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason two editors decided to drop my name in the discussion, with implied accusations of sock puppetry. Thus, I have to start by rejecting such accusations and making editors aware that they may constitute personal attacks. Regarding Treptow, while indeed his work on recent Romanian history is really dubious and should be used with extreme care, his works regarding older history reflect more or less (a slightly dated) Romanian historiographical consensus. Nevertheless, given Treptow's issues, I would prefer him not to be cited anywhere on WP (except in the article on himself, maybe), as I think more reliable sources in Romanian supporting his points about medieval history could be easily found (by editors such as Dahn or Cei Trei; especially the first could just pick up some Romanian popular history book, even when that doesn't agree with his other sources)Anonimu (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything, I merely defended myself against the risible claim that you are my sockpuppet (or vice versa); it was inevitable that I would mention your name. On the rest, we agree fully: I also feel that the facts picked up from Treptow could be picked up from other sources, whatever their POV (as long as it, the POV, is within the pale, which Treptow's, I argue, is not). You of course know that I have added all sorts of sources in articles I wrote, and confronted their POVs -- as we should. In fact, if you find the time to look at the above, you'll see that this started because I had done precisely that: added sources. Dahn (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record. This whole started because of a content dispute in connection with one specific fact you want to insert in the article based on a 110-year-old book. Remember, you wrote a congratulation to me after this article received GA status ([13]). Later, you revealed that you "always found it yucky that you felt the need to rely on [Treptow], but it was not a major issue" ([14]). And finally you concluded that a study published in a book edited by Treptow (not a study written by him!) was also unreliable, only because it contradicted a marginal claim of yours. I think the whole edit history demonstrates your attitude which can hardly be described as constructive. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have extended the doubt about books edited by Treptow, without passing any judgment on the matter, with a line of thought that anyone can follow in my arguments; I am sure that uninvolved editors will at least have to ponder if a book edited by a man with Treptow's reputation can be used as a source -- you yourself could explain your rationale as to why you find Treptow unreliable as an author, but reliable as an editor. I have also explained that I tend to find works on this subject (edited or authored) by Treptow to be borderline (overall "yucky", but not necessarily disqualifying) -- overall, you have done great work improving this article, and I stand by my congratulations. Now, you construe a claim that a book is necessarily unreliable because it is "110 years old" (which means absolutely nothing in itself), and have tagged references from it as unreliable; surely, this begs the question as to why we should accept books by Treptow, or by Watts, as reliable sources: the "110-year old book" and Bain were never questioned by anyone but you, while Treptow has no reputation left, and at least one of the books you cite him with is discussed as nationalist propaganda. So please understand how one hinges on the other, and how I'm open to any resolution as long as the issues (which you yourself deemed "serious") are considered, not swept under the rug. Dahn (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have several times stated, I had no knowledge about Romanian historians (and historians working in Romania). Sorry, but the claim that leading Romanian historians cooperated with deniers of Holocaust is surprising for me. I think Romanian wikipedians can decide that a book published in Romania can be regarded as a reliable source, because I have no deeper knowledge about this issues. Nevertheless, you let me refer to sources that you regarded unreliable and only used your knowledge of the cited author during a content debate. This is a fact which questions your good faith. Please also read again my argumentation about the 110-year-old book (which is only used by you to verify a marginal claim which contradicts to all other cited secondary sources even if you deny it.) Cooperating with other editors is obviously difficult for you, because all remarks which imply that your edits may contain errors, weasel words or original research outrage you ([15], [16], [17],[18], [19], [20]). Discussion is a normal way of working for most people I know, so this attitude is also a surprise for me, especially taking into account the high level of your edits. Borsoka (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough. The "110-year-old book" and another book say things that are not contradicted by other sources -- because you were unable to say where in those sources is stated that there was no war between the Poles and the Turks before Colomea. The rest is of course of no relevance: feel free not to believe me when I tell you that your very claims about Bain begged the question about Treptow/Watts (who are in any case discredited by the outside world, whereas Bain is questioned by you), feel free to depict me as spiteful or opportunistic, but what we're discussing here is utterly independent of that, and refers simply to whether wikipedia can rely on sources such as Treptow. As long as you yourself can recognize that the Treptow issue is serious, there is really nothing more to talk about how I'm not "constructive" in tagging him. Is questioning my reasons constructive?

Also, what "outrages" me is you wasting my time by picking at just about every single edit I made, when you misquote policy and introduce your personal preferences as policies (for instance, you were unable to show which part of WP:WEASEL covers the use of "possibly", though you pontificated that me using it is an instance of me adding weasel words to the source; even in the Bain & Kohn thing, your whole case relies on how a source disagreeing with you makes it unreliable). While trying to improve this and other articles (which you yourself acknowledged I have done), I have literally wasted five days of my life on your elaborate pretensions and your imperfect understanding of English (such as when you claimed that describing something as a "popular account" means disqualifying it, probably on the assumption that "popular account = folk tale"; or when you theorized that the simple statement "[Stephen's patronage] contributed to the development of Church Slavonic literature" is problematic, even when referring to Church Slavonic in Romania, because it might be read to mean that such of contribution is of universal, not contextual, importance -- an utterly ridiculous reading, but I let it slide). Yet the moment I bring up a serious issue with your sourcing, and proposed several solutions to tackle it, instead of discussing the issue you bring up my character and my supposed motivations -- an opinion which, WADR, I couldn't care less about. Dahn (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your above outburst of anger is again a good example of your attitude. Every single edit? Please compare your edits ([21]) and my edits ([22]). Yes, my English is weak. However, presenting a widely accepted scholarly as a popular account suggest that either you cannot fully understand the same language or you try to disqualify scholarly theories based on your own bias. Yes, the text about Church Slavonic literature was problematic and you acknowledged it through adding further references. You should decide whether Treptow is a serious issue or not. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem above might be self-victimization: there is no "anger" in my message, it's a simple and direct statement of what I believe are the facts of the matter. When you read it in your mind, try changing the tone from "angry" to "blunt", and you'll have an image of how I wrote it.

Yes, every single edit: I have added numerous sources for all of what I've added, and yet you insisted on tagging most of my edits for various issues which are mostly imaginary, then opening up discussions that detailed how you, with your approximate English, read them, and how it must be that everyone reads them like that. Though even that was certainly not constructive, and took up days of my time, I have been responsive and rephrased things you claimed were ambiguous, though I myself did not view them as ambiguous (and no, I did not add more references to please you: most references I added because I was adding more to the text either way). "Popular" account refers to its overall popularity, Borsoka, not to a lack of acceptance in scholarship -- even if you construe it to mean that it is dismissive, you cannot possibly claim that I intended to dismiss it just because you get stuck on reading "popular" as folksy or uscholarly (though get this: it is in fact not a scholarly theory at all, it is a claim made by Ureche, many decades after the fact; but regardless, describing it as a popular account was not intended to dismiss it, but actually to validate the fact that it is prevailing among those authors who recount Stephen's rule). In describing as "problematic" the passage about Church Slavonic, you extended another skewed reading of that phrase -- you claimed something along the lines of "not any book contributes to the development of X literature", citing the books published in English, not all of which contribute to English literature etc. This even though the text referred to Slavonic literature in Moldavia, and surely the lord of Moldavia commissioning books contributed to the development of literature there. But even if it were to hinge on your quaint reading: yes, it was a contribution to the Slavonic literature everywhere, since Slavonic, unlike English, was only used by a couple of countries, of which several were even more undeveloped than Moldavia. And of course all of this was already validated by the cited sources already in that version of the article. Lastly, "contribution" doesn't imply "major contribution", this is another thing that you project from inside your entrenched editing. A minor contribution, if that is what Stepehn's was, is also a contribution.

In the end, you insisted on tagging a reference you feel is outdated, without advancing a source that contradicts it about those specific claims (for the 19th time: no source you can cite disputes that the war started before Colomea, not that there was a league). When you allow yourself to tag sources as unreliable for subjective reasons, then you invite in questions about the objective problems of your sources. And these stand out on their own, regardless of your theories about me -- even if, in tagging them and bringing up the issue, I should be entirely scheming and dishonest or rude or insane or what have you, what matters is is that there is an issue.

But do take a moment to consider this: you imply that I am a hypocrite for sending you congratulations for your (overall) good edits, and for addressing your objections even as I found them frivolous. Leave the theory aside for a moment and concentrate on this: we have sunk to the level where you're badgering me for behaving like editors should. Do you really want to go down that path?

Just again, the list of my frivilous objections: ([23] and [24]). Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm done replying to "defend" myself here, but feel free to go on, if you feel like it. I'll just ignore the chaff and the grief, and wait until you produce something resembling a point. Dahn (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your remark about the scholars who accepted Ureche's report can be read here ([25]). Of course, you can be convinced that they were wrong - but presenting their view as a popular account is quite a brave act. The debate about the reliability of the 110-year-old book can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this is precisly my remark: ""Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler?" Surely anyone can see how I used "popular account" and precisely how Borsoka misunderstood it; they can also see how I incorporated his objection in the current text, even though I felt it was frivolous.

As for the other debate: it is an interesting study case in Borsoka reading things in the sources that aren't there, that is precisely the accusation which s/he throws around. The dispute is to whether there was a Polish-Ottoman war before Colomea -- two sources argue that there was, with very precise statements (that the war started a full year before Colomea, that Poland formed a league etc.); Borsoka claims that two other sources contradict that, even though they are entirely silent on this particular issue (they mention neither a precise date when the war started, nor anything on the league, though one of them claims that the Poles did nothing to help Moldavia -- try as you might, even that vague opinion does not contradict the claim, just like saying that France did nothing to help Poland in 1939 doesn't contradict that there was a WWII in 1939). Dahn (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• The full debate about the reliability of the 110-year-old book can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References

The Night King

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)

• Above comment is by the permablocked User:Anittas. I can only hope administrators still patrolling this talk page give him and his trolling some time-out. Dahn (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just in case someone tends to agree with this banned user's claim that the statement about Moldovenism is "unsourced" (the only thing he feels should be sourced in the lead, because, well, he feels like it): we have directly cited references about Stephen being a hero to Moldovenists from Asachi's day to our day, including to today's "Moldavian particularism" (per Boia). The demand is farcical, the editor a vandal. Dahn (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Robert Nisbet Bain

The Cambridge University Press published Robert Nisbet Bain's Slavonic Europe: A Political History of Poland and Russia from 1447 to 1796 in 1908, almost 110 years ago. I studied the latest books published about the late medieval history of Poland, and I concluded that Bain's book is not regarded as a source of Polish history. For instance, the following highly reliable books on the subject do not refer to Bain at all:

• Lukowski, Jerzy; Zawadzki, Hubert (2006). A Concise History of Poland. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521853323.
• Nowakowska, Natalia (2007). Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland: The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468-1503). Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-5644-9.
• Zamoyski, Adam (2009). Poland: A History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780007282753.
• Stone, Daniel Z. (2014). The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795. University of Washington Press. ISBN 9780295803623.
• Frost, Robert I. (2015). The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, Volume I: The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385–1567. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820869-3.

Bain's Slavonic Europe: A Political History of Poland and Russia from 1447 to 1796 is not listed among the books that Norman Davies suggest to be read by those who are interested in the history of Poland ([26]). Dahn, why do you think Bain's 110-year-old book is still relevant, if specialists of the history of Poland has recently not referred to him? We should avoid original research. Borsoka (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nonsense. This is Borsoka theorizing that we should not use Bain, because Bain says things that Borsoka chooses not to believe, and inventing new criteria why Bain is not reliable -- all the while using sources such as Treptow to source this article. Wikipedia specifically says that age of the reference is an issue only when one can point out that new discoveries have been made which specifically contradict the claim advanced by the old source. Borsoka, you will note, does not venture to claim that; s/he instead claims that sources such as Ciobanu contradict Bain because they do not mention the things Bain describes -- a clear case of absence of evidence being treated as evidence of absence. This creative logic now produces the claim that because random Polish sources do not refer to Bain, Bain is all of a sudden unreliable (Borsoka's inference). If Borsoka would want to argue that Bain's account is unreliable, s/he would have an easy way forward: present a source that says Bain's account is wrong, or that explicitly contradicts what Bain says. S/he was unable to find one so far. What is more, Bain is not just reliable on his own -- he is backed by Kohn, a contemporary of ours, who validates just about everything in Bain's account. Now, of course these authors may be unreliable, after all: but let Borsoka present evidence of their unreliability, not nonsensical self-referential claims about who is/isn't reliable. Dahn (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it is you who uses him to verify your own theory about a war which never existed (according to the above cited sources, either). Would you list books which refer to Bain's 110-year-old book? Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As noted, this is a plainly senseless and contrived query of no use to anyone, but hey, let's sink that boat as well. Matthew Glozier cited the very work in his 2013 "Early Modern Celtic Warfaring"; Conde Pazos in his 2012 "The Treaty of Naples"; Yevarouski in his 2009 "Возрождение и Реформация в Беларуси"; etc. In his Dying with an Enlightening Fall, David Pickus, referring to another one of Bain's books, specifically argues (page 8) that Bain is still relevant, in particular for his "vast knowledge of eastern European history". Let me know when you come across such a blurb for any of the authors you claim contradict him. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Now, what sources do you have that say Bain is unreliable, other than your own concoctions? Or what sources do you have that say the Poles' war with the Ottomans started only after the pact of Colomea? This is how you determine WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Absurd. Nonsense. (To again use your favorite adjectives.) Do you really want to prove that he is regarded as a relible source of the history of late medieval Poland through referring to works which only touch a (later) period of the history of the same country. Yes, Nowakowska clearly contradicts to him (she also writes that the war broke out only after the Colomea meeting) (Nowakowska (2007), pp. 30-31). Frost also says that the war broke out in 1485 (Frost (2015), p. 280). You are writing about a "league", but you cannot name a single member of the alleged "league". And this whole ridicolous stuff was created only because you wanted to provide a (non-existing) "background" to the Colomea meeting ([27]), instead of repeating the simple facts: the two ports were occupied and Stephen needed Polish assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Concentrate: the sources I mentioned, all but the last one, refer to that book by Bain. I have specifically answered your question, and not even went in to verify the use of other medievalist works by Bain, which are also profusely cited to this day. The comment from Pickus I gave precisely because it says that Bain is quotable to this day, citing a generic attribute that doesn't really fade away: that he is a major authority on East European history.

Interestingly, books dedicated to the history of Poland ignore him. Similarly to his invasion of Moldavia. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to name any member of any league, Borsoka, if the sources don't name them. The request is frivolous -- or yes, absurd nonsense.

Your answer is frivilous. If the members of the league could not be named, the existence of the league is not relevant. We do not need to list all pieces of irrelevant information in an article. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't verify Nowakowska in your link, surely you can give an exact quote. What I can verify in that book is that, in the chronology section, she dates the seizing of the ports to Summer 1485, which is already an error, off by one full year! Or should we quote her saying that, and maybe expunge every source saying otherwise as unreliable?

"In 1484, Sultan Bajezid II annexed the Moldavian Black Sea port of Kilija and Bialogród, cities which formed a crucial link in the trade routes which snaked through Poland. In response to this attack, kazimierz IV marched an army into Podolia, osnensibly in order to aid the Moldavians. In the royal camp at Kolomijy, Kazimierz IV extracted a public vow of homage from Stefan, thereby declaring Poland's status as superior regional power in the north-eastern Balkans, in a rebuff to Buda and Constantinople. Stefan received only paltry military assistance, but Kazimierz had made his point." (Nowakowska (2007), pp. 30-31.) Do you read about an anti-Ottoman invasion in Moldavia in 1484 in the text? Or about a "league"? As you see the 1485 date is a typo in the chronology. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I can read in that text is precisely that the war started before Colomea: "In response to this attack, Kazimierz IV marched an army into Podolia, ostensibly in order to aid the Moldavians." Hah. Her not mentioning the league doesn't mean her denying that there was a league, as anyone familiar with the rudiments of logic knows. By this point, your quotations are shooting you in the foot; maybe it's time to consider backing down and actually reading them. Be reasonable and admit that you just may be wrong here. Dahn (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reference to an anti-Ottoman coalition set up by the Poles or an anti-Ottoman campaign launched by the Poles in the book? No, there are no such statements. What is clear that the occupation of the two ports gave rise to the conflict and no war broke out before the Colomea meeting. It is you who want to write about a (non-existing) Polish-Ottoman war before the conflict based on a 110-year-old source. You are simply unable to understand that you have been attempting to add an irrelevant piece of information which is highly debatable. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter that there isn't, because her not mentioning it is not the same as her denying it. Do you understand that concept? There is absolutely nothing in there that says "no war broke out before the Colomea meeting", and in fact a clear reference to an act of war before the Colomea meeting: "marched his army". The existence of a war in 1484 does not hinge on there being actual battles in 1484 (presuming there weren't any), particularly in a setting where one takes months and months to prepare a military campaign. Your suggestion that the war was "non-existent" before Stephen paid homage to Casimir is apparently entirely based on your claim that there must be battles and invasions for a war to start (something the other sources may not necessarily back) and your theory that (right or wrong) comments about (lack of) assistance to Moldavia constitute comments about the state of war between Poland and the Ottoman Empire. Take a walk outside, have a coffee, come back in 20 minutes, reread this with an open mind, and you'll maybe see my point once you put some distance between your dislike of me and the relevant facts up for discussion. Dahn (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"... marched an army into Podolia, ostensibly (!!!) in order to aid the Moldavians." She does not write of a war, she writes of Casimir's willingnes to assist Moldavia. Can you understand the difference between a war and the possibility of war? Does her text suggest that Casimir decided to wage war on the Ottomans even without Moldavian assistance? Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the text does suggest exactly that: "In response to this attack". The text makes it clear that the Poles were responding to an Ottoman attack, and intended to reoccupy the ports. Does it explicitly mention a war before that date? Well, it mentions that the army was already marching to help the Moldavians (that is what "ostensibly" means, Borsoka: it's not her saying that the march was perfunctory, but that it was clear to everyone that they were going to war, already when they went marching; this, incidentally, is the account in all other sources which refer to the expedition as already part of the war). But even if it would not mention that, do understand the concept: "not mentioning X =/= denying X". Dahn (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• [28] Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot ignore what a precise source says, just because you disagree with it. Two sources at the moment say that there was a war (a symbolic or half-hearted or abortive war, perhaps, but still a war) before Colomea, and you're yet to provide a quote saying specifically that "there was no war before Colomea". No, "in 1485" don't mean "after Colomea", friend. I assure you, once you produce that source, I'll not object to you adding it in the text. Dahn (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A 110-year-old source which is not cited in books dedicated to the history of Poland in the 21st century. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that it would matter or not whether it is quoted or not in books handpicked by Borsoka (that is not how we determine RSes), but by this point even the allegation that the book is no longer cited in scholarship is proven to be false. Borsoka, seriously, give it a rest. Not only do you formulate a trite and convoluted claim to besmirch Bain, but what do you think it adds if you repeat it even after it's proven false? Other than annoying me and making me feel I should no longer care what you haev to say, what do you imagine is achieved here? Dahn (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You are simply unable to understand that you have been attempting to add an irrelevant piece of information which is highly debatable based on a 110-year-old source which is not cited by modern historians who write of the history of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, noted. I'm unable etc. Anything else? Dahn (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim should be deleted from the article and the text should be modified in accordance with the majority of the sources, without creating leagues and Polish-Ottoman wars. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. Dahn (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Weight. We do not need to present all marginal theories. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And we would have to start with your theory that there was no war "because some sources don't explicitly say that there was a war". Dahn (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I have never suggested this. I only suggested we should follow the chronology of the majority of the sources, which do not have knowledge of any (otherwise unspecified) leagues and we should not create a war before it actually broke out. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we follow Nowakowska, per your suggestion above, we would say something like this: "the loss of the two ports in 1484 prompted the king to plan a war on the Ottomans, for which purpose he marched his army on Podolia in 1485. At Colomea, Stephen met him, and etc." There is absolutely no contradiction between this account and an account that says the same, while specifying that the war started in 1484 (because by all accounts that is when the preparation started), and that Poland formed/joined a league. Your claim that the contradiction exists and is one of chronology is entirely spurious, and by now contradicted by the very sources your cite. The account about the league may be, let's assume, overdetailed or shaky, and you may have a point that we reduce the text (though I feel you don't have a point); but it is clearly not an issue of the sources being in disagreement over chronology or the very existence of a war, as you claimed over and over again. Dahn (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No, if we follow Nowakowska, we cannot say that. She does not say that the king was planning a war on the Ottomans. ([29]) Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

She says precisely that, but you know, one must actually understand the meaning of the phrasing: "ostensibly in order to aid the Moldavians". Dahn (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Does she says that the war broke out? No, she does not say. She says that the Poles were apparently marching to Colomea to assist Moldavia, but she does not say that the war was decided. If we want to follow Nowakowska's text we should write that "A year after the Ottoman occupation of the two ports, Casimir mustered an army of 20,000 strong and moved to Colomea to meet Stephen". We do not need to theoretize whethe the war had already broken out, or the war broke out only after Casimir intervened in the conflict on Stephen's behalf. Borsoka (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

She says the war was in preparation, which does not contradict any of the sources saying the same. She makes absolutely no claim about when exactly the war started, but defines the marching as an act of war. Again, see the paraphrasing above: "the loss of the two ports in 1484 prompted the king to plan a war on the Ottomans, for which purpose he marched his army on Podolia in 1485. At Colomea, Stephen met him, and etc." None of this says the war started in 1484, neither does it contradict sources which say it did. Because they do not contradict each other. Do you have a source that says: "the war started after Colomea"? Produce it. Dahn (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. I accept that this is a good solution. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Stephen III of Moldavia → Stephen the Great – per WP:COMMONNAME. Everyone knows this prince as "Stephen the Great". In fact, I only found out that he was the third Stephen of Moldavia after I visited this page for the first time. This would not be any new change; see Michael the Brave (instead of Michael II of Wallachia). Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC).

• I've never heard of him, so I don't know him as "Stephen the Great" ;-). But seriously, what is he called in reliable sources?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In Google Scholar, "Stephen III of Moldavia" only gets 56 results, while "Stephen the Great" gets 2,240. This is the same in Romanian; 17 results for "Ștefan al III-lea" (al III-lea means "the third") and 5,880 for "Ștefan cel Mare". I have tried using Google Ngram too but the page does not have an option in the Romanian language and "Stephen III of Moldavia" and "Ștefan al III-lea" did not give me any results (which is weird, maybe I did a mistake or something). Super Ψ Dro 15:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be the common name. But I think a redirect is required. Dimadick (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. WP:COMMONNAME and the numbering of medieval Moldavian rulers is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing comment: It is rare to move a GA! But we have strong policy-based consensus here IMO. I also note previous discussed moves, including to Ştefan cel Mare but hope we will now have stability. Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2020 (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.

File:Moldavia - Ulrich von Richental.svg

• 
  Coat of arms of Moldavia 1420–1430 ?
• 
  Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1414–1418
• 
  Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1464
• 
  Coat of arms of Wallachia. 1483
• 
  Coat of arms of Wallachia-Bessarabia. 1702
• 
  Coat of arms of Wallachia-Bessarabia. Reprint 1741
• 
  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)

Removed mass "better source needed" tags

I'm not familiar with the squabbles on this topic, but having ~80 "better source needed" tags, many on historical statements that are corroborated by multiple other sources, cannot possibly be the solution. I've removed them from now. These tags appear to have been added by an editor during a dispute 7 years ago, focusing on three books that he found questionable. But these three books are published by academic publishers. If he has reason to think that these works are not reliable and can provide another academic's opinion as such, then I suggest removing these works and the associated sentences from the article altogether, not blanket tagging the article and making it effectively unreadable. Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)