Talk:Moldavia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Native language of Moldavia

As per Template:Infobox country, "native_name" refers to "Country's name (usually full name) in its native language.... ". The native language in Moldavia was obviously Romanian (Moldavian), not Old Church Slavonic (a language unknown to the people). In fact, in Moldavia, Greek was also used, at a certain period, as an administrative language, but this does not mean that Greek was also the native language of the people. This situation is common during the European medieval period, an example being the Kingdom of England where the administrative and liturgical language was Latin, while the native language was obviously English. (Rgvis (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC))

The only name attested in native documents until the late 1500s is the one in Church Slavonic, and the name is attested by several sources you are removing. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors can make original research. Please stick to sources and do not remove the reliable ones added by editors.Anonimu (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The template refers to "native language", not "native documents" (in England, documents were written in Latin, but that did not mean that native language was Latin). @Anonimu, Лобачев Владимир - So, your claim is that the native language of Moldavia is Church Slavonic. In my opinion, this is WP:Fringe. In support of your statement, you have provided three sources ([1], [Молдаване: Очерк истории, этнографии, искусствоведения], and [2]), but only the last one could be accessed. Following the verification of this last source, it does not appear that the Church Slavonic language is the native language of the Moldavians (the text makes no reference to this aspect). According to WP:RSUE, "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". To put an end to this dispute, please provide the appropriate citations from each source, which clearly show that Moldavia's native language is Church Slavonic. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC))

The templates refers to name used in native documents, the only ones for Moldavia being Church Slavonic until the late 16th century. See for example the use of Latin at Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569), Kingdom of Portugal, none of which had a population with Latin as native language.Anonimu (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The explanations for using the above mentioned template are quite clear. Anyway, you may know that other languages (besides the Old Church Slavonic) were also used in Moldavia for writing the chancellery documents. (Rgvis (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

See Panaitescu (source details in the article), p. 18: "The Slavonic language [...] was the official language of the feudal state", with details further down about Slavonic being an actual spoken language in Moldavia and Wallachia and not only a chancellery language.Anonimu (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The template refers to the native language, or on the same page of your source, Panaitescu defines very clearly which one is the native language in Moldavia:

.... the lords and boyars spoke Slavonic, along with their mother tongue, Romanian.

I am not at all surprised by your cherry picking practice. :)

Otherwise, if we were to refer to the so-called "languages of the state" (which, at that time, had a completely different meaning than today), we can also easily add Latin and Greek to the list, as is very clearly summarized in this article: "Writing and the languages used in Moldavia (XV-XVII centuries)" [3]. (Rgvis (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

You are the one nitpicking and going over fine differences over what native name may mean, despite multiple example of medieval states using that parameter for the country name in the official language of the state. We have established Romanian, Moldovan and Russian historians saying Slavonic was the official language of Moldavia until the late 16th century and we have them attesting usage of Slavonic by natives. Regarding your sources, going over the extraordinary claims ("Decebalus per Scorillo" being an early example of writing by Romanians!, the possibly fictional Aethicus Ister claimed as Romanian!, Latin writing assumed to be used in Moldova due to the "eternal Latin spirit"!), it confirms Slavonic as the main language of Moldavian culture, with Latin used seldom, mainly in documents addressed to neighbouring countries where Latin was official (do remember that our articles about Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569) have the Latin names even though Latin was not the mother tongue of any local population).Anonimu (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In the second half of the XIV century, the East Slavic population accounted for two-thirds of the total population of the Moldavian land. Source: Однороженко О. Українська (руська) еліта доби Середньо віччя і раннього модерну: структура та влада. — Киев, 2011 — ISBN 978-617-569-025-3 — С. 163 (uk)

In the principality in the 14-15 centuries the Cyrillic alphabet became widespread and the chronicles were written in Old Slavonic. In the 14th-16th centuries, the official language of the principality was Church Slavonic, and only from the 17th century the Moldovan language began to be used in office work. The vast majority of written sources in Moldova of the 14th and 15th centuries are in the Slavic language and written in Cyrillic. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anonimu and Лобачев Владимир: Well, the theories of the (Neo) Soviet historiography are well known (Wikipedia being sufficiently intoxicated with it). For English Wikipedia, let's see what a Western source says about the difference between the administrative language and the native language used in Moldavia (Rebecca Haynes, Moldova A History, 2020): [4]

(pages 20 and 48):

The emergence of the Moldovan and Wallachian principalities as political entities in the 14th century had the effect of transforming Old Church Slavonic into the written language of the princely courts, as well as that of the Church, through its adoption by the court chancelleries.

Old Church Slavonic was a language incomprehensible to Moldova's peasant masses and indeed to most of the lower clery. The village clergy's ignorance of Slavonic was such that many were unable to conduct religious services.

As for the Latin used as an administrative language during the first decades of the Moldavia's existence, studies continue for several decades (and obviously depend on new information that appears over time). For example, Stefan Gorovei, "Am pus pecetea orasului", 1978:

... there was a time when Latin was the official language of the chancellery of Moldova and Wallachia. The oldest documents, internal and external, were written in Latin. The oldest princely seals had the legend in Latin ... Also in Latin were the legends of the oldest boyar seals. Finally, let us add that the first coins, issued by both countries in the 14th century, also had a Latin legend. All this converges to strengthen the hypothesis - cautiously advanced by researchers Leon Simanschi and Georgeta Ignat in a study published in 1972 - that in the princely chancellery of Moldavia, before the adoption of Slavonic writing, the used written language was Latin.

Of course, no one denies the role of the Church Slavonic, which had a privileged position as the language of the church and administration until its replacement with Romanian (as happened in England with Latin, replaced with English), but this does not mean that Slavonic was also the native language of Moldavia (just as Latin was not the native language of England). (Rgvis (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC))

Moldovan language

Sources saying that in the Moldavian principality, the Moldovan language was the official language since the 17th century.

• Черепнин Л. В. История Молдавской ССР: С древнейших времен до Великой Октябрьской социалистической революции. — Кишинёв: Картя молдовеняскэ, 1965. — С. 263.
• Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople, dans Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii și materiale de istorie medievală, IV, 1960, p. 444
• Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii și materiale de istorie medievală, IV, 1960, p. 444.

Dimitrie Cantemir also claimed that the Moldovan language is spoken in the Moldavian principality (Dimitrie Cantemir Descriptio Moldaviae). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Cantemir refers to Moldavian as a dialect and compares it with Wallachian, Transylvanian and "Cutzovlach" (Aromanian). [5]

This is what Pierre Lescalopier states:

"Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l'empereur... Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte [românește, Romanian], c'est-à-dire romain ... "

I won't bother with the Russian source. Super Ψ Dro 12:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

While Cantemir counts as a primary source and should not be used directly in articles not directly related to him, his work talks about "the language of Moldavians" and "Moldavian [language]". He uses the same terms for Moldavian, Italian and Greek, so there's no indication that he meant to say dialect instead of language.Anonimu (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate is very bad for Latin, but in a paragraph (Praeterea, uti cunctae fere linguae, ita et moldava diversas patitur dialectos. Purissimus sermo in medio Moldaviae circa Iassios viget, quod continua aulae principalis praesentia cultiores vulgo evadunt illius agri coloni. Qui ad Tyratem habitant, multa polonica intermiscent, et plura vasa domesticis usibus inservientia polonicis denominant vocabulis, ita ut ab alio Moldavo vix intelligi possint. Qui in alpibus versus Transylvaniam vivunt, saepius hungaricis utuntur vocibus, Falczienses tartarico, Galaczienses graeco turcicoque sermone moldavum corrumpunt.), he appears to treat Moldavian as a dialect that can be understood by non-Moldavians, and puts Transylvanians as an example. He also says Valachiae et Transylvaniae incolis eadem est cum Moldavis lingua, pronunciatio tamen rudior ("Wallachia and Transylvania locals with the same language of Moldavians, performed more crude", or something like that). Super Ψ Dro 22:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, what you or I believe Cantemir meant is irrelevant, since we are not allowed to judge a primary source. I was just noting that Cantemir used the standard Latin word for language. Since he considered boyars a nation apart from the peasants, it is highly unlikely he cared much about the issue or framed his work according to 19th century nationalism.Anonimu (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: I would recommend this study to clarify this topic: The Ambivalence of Authenticity, or How the Moldovan Language Was Made. (Rgvis (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

I agree, this is a rather neutral treatment of the topic, which, while not dealing directly with the issue of the medieval principality, suggest that locals called their language Moldovan at least since 1812: "Under both Romanians and Soviets, peasants referred to themselves and their language as "Moldovan" well into the 1930s, a practice that infuriated pan-Romanian nationalists in Greater Romania.", "The Moldovan peasant's view of his own national identity was not the product of Russian assimilationist policies but had instead remained virtually frozen since the Russian annexation of Bessarabia in 1812, a time when the idea of a "Romanian nation" stretching from the Tisza to the Bug was still in its infancy".Anonimu (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Chronicle of the Moldavian Land

The language of the first Chronicle of the Moldavian principality, written not in the Slavic language. Scientific sources.

Ru: «Летопись Земли Молдавской» Григоре Уреке. Написанное на молдавском языке в первой половине XVII в.
En: Chronicle of the Moldavian Land ”Grigore Ureke. Written in Moldovan in the first half of the 17th century.

Ru: «Летопись Страны Молдовы, отколь образовалось государство, о течении годов и о жизни господарей» — первое письменное исследование на молдавском языке, охватывающее период 1359-1594 гг.
En: "Chronicle of the Country of Moldova, when the state was formed, about the course of the years and about the life of the rulers" - the first written research in the Moldovan language, covering the period 1359-1594.

Ru: В XVII в. на смену официальному славянско-молдавскому летописанию приходит боярское летописание на молдавском языке (кириллицей). Наиболее известными молдавскими летописцами были Еустратие Логофет (?-1646), Григоре Уреке, Мирон Костин, Николай Костин, Аксинтий Урикарул, Ион Некулче.
En: In the 17th century, the official Slavic-Moldavian chronicle was replaced by the boyar chronicle in the Moldavian language (Cyrillic). The most famous Moldovan chroniclers were Eustratie Logofet (? -1646), Grigore Ureke, Miron Kostin, Nikolai Kostin, Aksinti Urikarul, Ion Nekulce.

Ru: Инициативная роль в боярском летописании Молдавского княжества принадлежала Григоре Уреке (1590-1647), автору первой дошедшей до нас летописи на молдавском языке — «Летописи Земли Молдавской отколь образовалось государство, о течении годов и о жизни господарей, повествующей от Драгоша-воеводы до Арона-воеводы».
En: The initiatory role in the boyar chronicle of the Moldavian principality belonged to Grigore Ureca (1590-1647), the author of the first chronicle in the Moldavian language that has come down to us - “The Chronicle of the Moldavian Land otkol formed a state, about the course of the years and the life of the rulers, telling from Dragos-voivode to Aron-voivode".

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these sources are Russian. It is obvious Russian sources won't say anything that goes against the interests of their country. Please bring other sources, ideally English ones. Super Ψ Dro 12:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the authority of sources determined by nationality? Most of the works on Moldova and Bessarabia were published in Russia. And should we ignore them just because they don't fit your scheme? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is. Russia is clearly against the unification of Moldova and Romania, which is the stance Moldovenists have. Russia still recognises the Moldovan language and it is obvious most Russians would favor a former Soviet country with a substantial Russian minority than the country whose population wants it to dissappear. Thus, the Russian POV is biased. And so is the Romanian one for other reasons. We should aim for foreign sources, something which I don't rememeber having seen you do often. Super Ψ Dro 21:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the policy of Russia. On this issue, contact Putin. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This is preposterous and highly xenophobic, there's no policy allowing editors to exclude certain reliable sources based on the nationality of the author.Anonimu (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am allowed to question them, just like this user is allowed to question Romanian sources, when writing over a disputed topic that involves several nations and ethnicities. As I said, and as another user said before, it is better to use foreign sources. We wouldn't blindlessly trust Serbian/Albanian or Armenian/Azerbaijani sources when writing about Kosovo or Nagorno-Karabakh in Wikipedia. This is another more calm but still disputed case. Although obviously I am not saying all Romanian or Russian sources should be removed. But this user attempted to justify the use of the 20th century Moldovan language through the use of Russian sources, precisely. Not something of minor relevance that wouldn't cause conflict such as what happened in Orhei in 1567, just to give a random example. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: The statement that most of the works on Moldavia has been published in Russia is hilarious (I would agree, if you were referring to Soviet Moldavia, although, even in this case, I would think that more were also published in Moldova; anyway, here we are on the Moldavia talkpage). On the other hand, I do not know if you are aware that, from a legal point of view, the successor state of Moldavia is Romania. (Rgvis (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Ethnic composition

The ethnic composition of the principality's population was heterogeneous. At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, the Vlachs, according to onomastics, prevailed only among the urban population. Using the data of rural oikonymy, L. L. Polevoy determined the share of Rusyns in the Moldavian principality in the middle of the fifteenth century at 39.5%, and the share of the Romanesque population at 48.7%. Although Rusyns (descendants of the Old Russian population of the Carpathian-Dniester lands) constituted up to 40% of the population of Moldova at the time of foundation, they occupied only 20-25% of the members of the Boyar Council of Stephen the Great. At the same time, traces of any discrimination of the Slavic population in the principality have never been attested. Moreover, the ethnonym Moldovans took root in the principality as a political name, independent of ethnic origin (Romanesque or Slavic). In the preface to the Chronicles of the Land of Moldavia, Simeon Daskal (17th century) pointed out that "the country was created from two languages, and that to this day half of the country consists of Russians".

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"the country was created from two languages, and that to this day half of the country consists of Russians" do you really expect us to take these claims as neutral? This only leaves clear what your intention is when editing articles about Moldavia. Super Ψ Dro 12:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And you claiming that Moldavia spoke "West Russian" just shows your POV further. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about ethnic estimates based on onomastics and toponymy (especially considering the amount of Slavic vocabulary in whatever you choose to call the Romance language spoken in Moldavia during the middle ages), but since in many places we present as fact the claim based on equally shady "science" that "Romanians" constituted 86% of the Bessarabian population in 1818, I see no reason with adding such information as long as it attributed. Do note that copying references from other sources is not acceptable, you should make sure the references do support your text. If you are unable to do that, just cite the author you found that info from, not his references.Anonimu (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious problem with Russians being half of Moldavia's population during the 17th century. I believe this user just translated Ruthenes to Russians. Ruthenes is more credible, but 50% of Moldavians being Russians in the 17th century is an unacceptable claim. Super Ψ Dro 22:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, Simion Dascălul does use "ruși" in the original text, a perfect example showing why original translations of primary sources is not allowed on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Your theories and data are supported only by some historians who are affiliated with the Soviet or neo-Soviet historiography, and not confirmed by other sources (see Demography and Politics East of the Carpathians in the 14th Century: Historiographical Aspects) As long as this information is disputed and challenged, there is no reason to have it introduced into the main infobox template of the article (as is the case with other historical hypotheses). (Rgvis (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

I have cited sources both from the times of the USSR and modern ones. Moreover, from three countries: Russia, Ukraine and Moldova. If one source cited by you gives a different point of view, then it is not for us to decide who is right. We must indicate all opinions expressed in the scientific community. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: by neutral user in this topic @Rgvis:, @Anonimu:, @Super Dromaeosaurus: User Лобачев Владимир is just a propagandist who spreads his nationalistic POV. He and his friend Kazimier Lachnovič was already reported previously at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda to the article of Pahonia. If he persistently pushes his nationalistic POV, then simply create another report at the AN and report his actions with clear evidence (links to his diffs). His friend is already tagged as disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics (first by Barkeep49, then by Ymblanter) and I hardly see much differences in Лобачев Владимир's edits. For example: this edit about Lithuania. Do not surrender to his pushing of propaganda because he absolutely does not seek the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From my own experience, Лобачев Владимир's statements constantly were a false propaganda. -- Pofka (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ideally, this article should not be written from a pro-Russian, pro-Romanian or any other viewpoint, instead it should be NPOV. Sometimes it's better to look for sources in English or another major language not directly involved in a dispute. This German language book[6] may have some info on demographics that's more trustworthy than what's stated above, some of which I agree looks dodgy in terms of WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring in the infobox

Considering the recent RfC has decided both flags have to stay, I see no point in the current edit war going on in the infobox. Please follow the WP:BRD process and discuss the issue here before further reverts. For example, you may quote the source exactly and then discuss whether it supports the text or not.Anonimu (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm waiting for the quote from the provided reference (although, above we already had a discussion about the content of this source). As for the mentioned RfC, things don't seem to be clear at all - WP:ACD. (Rgvis (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Flag 1831–1859

Source 1

Ru: Сине-красный флаг у Молдавского княжества 1831-1859 гг.

En: Blue-red flag of the Moldavian principality 1831-1859

Source: Shornikov Petr Как была принята государственная символика республики Молдова (How the state symbolism was adopted in the Republic of Moldova) // Журнал Русин (Magazine "Rusin"), 2016

Shornikov Petr (Russian: Шорников П. М.) - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Assosiate Professor of the Department of National History of the Institute of History and State Managment of the Taras Shevchenko State University (Source)

The international historical magazine "Rusin" has been published since 2005. It is a scientific journal on the history of the Carpathian-Dniester lands and its indigenous population - Rusyns (Rusnaks). Language of edition: Russian, Ukrainian, Ruthenian (materials are published in the original language). Founder: Public Association "Rus" (Chisinau, Moldova). The journal is sent to the largest libraries, scientific institutes and leading universities in Russia (including the addresses indicated for the distribution of the thesis abstract), Moldova, Ukraine, a number of large libraries and universities in the far abroad. The issues of the journal are posted in the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.RU (Russian Science Citation Index). Since 2011, Rusin has been included in the international citation system (bibliographic base) Scopus as the leading scientific Russian-language publication and one of the few CIS humanitarian journals included in this base. In accordance with the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia and bibliographic databases Scopus and RSCI, new publication rules are introduced in the journal: we recommend that authors personally register with SCIENCE INDEX (Russian Science Citation Index). (Source) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Source 2

Ru: В армиях появляются национальные флаги и оркестры. Валашский флаг состоял из желтой и красной полос, а молдавский из синей и красной.

En: National flags and bands appear in the armies. The Wallachian flag consisted of yellow and red stripes, and the Moldavian one of blue and red.

Source: Гросул В. Я. Россия и формирование национальных регулярных армий Молдавии и Валахии (Russia and the formation of the national regular armies of Moldavia and Wallachia) // Вопросы истории: ежемесячный журнал. : Nr. 5/2001

Vladislav Grosul (Russian: Гросул, Владислав Якимович). Doctor of Historical Sciences (1976), Professor (1997). Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor at the State Academy of Slavic Culture. One of the authors of the "Great Russian Encyclopedia".

Voprosy Istorii (Russian: Вопросы истории, translated Questions of History) is a Russian academic journal for historical studies. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

@Лобачев Владимир: These sources are already known, you provided them earlier. According to WP:SYNTHESIS:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

Do you have other sources that cannot be classified as original research? (Rgvis (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC))

Haven't you posted template "need quotation to verify" to the source Шорников П.М. (Shornikov P.M.)? I gave a quote and described the source in detail. This information is confirmed by another scientific source cited. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Well, the provided source does not make any precise description of the mentioned flag (apart from the brief blue-red description); in fact, it could refer to any of the multiple blue-red flags that existed in that period (as, by the way, other authors state). For example, according to this source, the flag was completely different. (Rgvis (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC))

Flag. This is a mid-19th century civil flag with Turkish stars on a red background in the corner. See c:Category:Civil ensign of Moldavia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: So, it is clear that your cited source do not support your claim, as per WP:BURDEN. In this case:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

(Rgvis (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC))

"Blue-red flag of the Moldavian principality 1831-1859". So they say only about two-colored striped flags. The second source and the images above also confirm this. Therefore, your conclusions are incorrect. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Your first source says nothing about any "striped" flag (at that time, there were several models of blue-red flags, not only striped). On the other hand, apart from colors, the second source has no connection with the first source regarding the period to which the first source refers, "1831-1859". And, as already mentioned above, there are clear rules about the synthesis of published material:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

(Rgvis (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC))

Shornikov speaks unambiguously about this flag and unambiguously indicates the years (1831-1859). Don't come up with something that the author didn't say. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: The requirement is to make a clear description (preferably also visually), but neither of the two sources mentioned above meets it. In this case, the only periodization for this flag variant remains limited to the year 1849 (according to its original source). (Rgvis (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC))

In vexillography, such a description unambiguously says that there was nothing other than stripes on the flag. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Are you able to provide a clear source, or not? Otherwise, we will conclude this discussion for good. (Rgvis (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC))

Sources unequivocally claiming that since the adoption of the Regulamentul Organic of the Moldavian principality, a national flag has appeared, consisting of blue and red stripes, given above. If you do not agree with them, then it is not the fault of the sources. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: We will not resume a topic already discussed (see above the subject on the blue-red lance pennon referred to in the Regulamentul Organic). The flag of the current discussion has a different shape and, according to the 1849 catalog used as source, it was a naval flag. (Rgvis (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC))

I admit that it was used both as a war flag and as a civil ensign. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: from a neutral user in this topic: Russian sources obviously fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability rules and can be completely ignored due to Propaganda in the Russian Federation and Propaganda in the Soviet Union in a non-Russian topic about another country's history - Moldova (in the past this monarchy was annexed by the Russian occupiers). Cyber leninist (cyberleninka) source should be removed straight away from the infobox of this article and user Лобачев Владимир should be presented with sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if he will continue to reinsert such unreliable, chauvinistic sources in an encyclopedia-level project (Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia). -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Chauvinism and Russophobia have no place in Wikipedia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda in the Russian Federation and Propaganda in the Soviet Union have no place in Wikipedia. These articles exists for a reason, thus the Russian sources fail to comply with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources rule, especially those with various controversial statements about other countries. -- Pofka (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

When the arguments run out, political slogans begin. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, the flag is also attested in some Romanian sources, but it is unclear how it was used -- for instance if it was merely the bicolor reduction of a more complex flag. Overall, the debate strikes me as utterly absurd: we have a well attested File:Civil Ensign of the Principality of Moldavia (1834-1861).svg, using the same colors in a different arrangement, so you can just use that. Dahn (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)