User talk:Dahn/Archive 6

Annitas / Moldova

I've received a rather long and substantive (citations, etc.) email from Anittas about Moldova, which he would like me to pass on to you. You apparently choose not to receive email; he's blocked, so he cannot place the material here or on the relevant talk page.

I'm reachable by email. Could you please do one of the following:

Email me your email address with permission to pass it on to Anittas.
Email me your email address so I can forward this, but without permission to pass your email address to Anittas.
Tell me on my user talk page to just copy the material here.
Let me know by any of these means that you don't care what Anittas has to say, and that I should stop trying to convey messages from him to you.

-- Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here 'tis:

[Begin copied from Anittas email]

Dahn has his Wiki email notification off, so I would like you to give him this message from me. Thx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldavia&curid=46007&diff=60734230&oldid=60511981

My message: It is not false. Moldavia reached the Dniester under Petru I. It's just not certain whether it did so from the north, south, or both.

Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries, Spinei Victor, 1986 Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania.

Page 218 [The unequivocal mention of the supremacy of the voivode of Moldavia "from the mountains to the sea" is found in the well known act of Roman I dated on March 30, 1392. ... Certain reasons exist to consider that the boundaries of Moldavia had been established along the Black Sea coast under Roman I as attested by documents of 1392 and 1393 but only if this title had been recalled in the documents of the following years. As this is not the case, it may be assumed that the documents of Romani Musat actually reflect a continuation of the voivodes sovereignty up to the sea coast before being recorded by the diplomatic acts of the court.]

Anittas: It is also possible that for a brief period of time, southern Moldavia, which would reach to Dniestr, reigned as a seperate state from northern Moldavia.

Page 219.

I find that particularly speculative (Certain reasons exist to consider), and part of a political program which was not even shared by all Romanian sources (Stefanescu makes no mention of it). If it was indeed so, we may never know for sure. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[The political statute of Moldavia is closely connected with the attributions of Constantin at Cetatea Alba, where he had contacted the Genoese envoys. Careful examination of the seals attached to the act of hommage of January 6, 1395 revealed a Greek inscription on the seal of Costea Viteazul - unique in old Moldavian sphragistics -- attesting to the influence of a chancellery within the area of Byzantine civilization. This chancellery was certainly that of Cetatea Alba, suggesting Costea's connection with the great port at the Dniester estuary and offers arguments for his identification with his homonym mentioned in a Greek inscription fixed in 1399 on a tower of Cetatea Alba and also with Constantin.]

I tried to stick with what other articles point out about Moldavian rule in the area. At best, this says [it] offers arguments and creates a theory around that argument. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas: in fact, Moldavia also controlled for a very short period of time, Little Podolia, along with Pokutia.

Reference it. I'm not an expert on the matter, and I have nothing against including that in the text. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edits to Moldavia are confusing me. I don't see what you're adding to the article; you're just moving thigs around, in numerous edits.

Well, I'm quite done now. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some passages look very confusing, such as this one:

[Three decades later, in 1353, Dragos, mentioned as a Knyaz in Maramures, was sent by Louis I to establish a line of defense against the Golden Horde forces on the Siret River. This expedition resulted in a polity vassal to Hungary, centered aroun Baia, and initially and briefly named Bogdania.]

The name of Bogdania was placed during the reign of Bogdan I, not Dragos.

Right - I think I succombed to my own edits :). Will rephrase. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think that it was only foreigners which called it like that.

I don't see what the problem is here. The only mentions of it in that time are foreign. If you have problem with this, why did you leave it in the text originally? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be worthy to mention that the Pope called Moldavia also for Vlachia and that in diplomacy, the Moldavian rulers often named their country for Moldo-Wlachia.

Indicating what? I don't feel like coaching wikipedia readers, and I'm not sure anyone could possibly speculate as to what reasons the pope had for doing that (I mean, it could just as well be because they were both vassals of Hungary). Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you won't mention that both Dragos and Bogdan were Vlachs. Why did you remove that passage?

I think such problems are being dealt with by the main articles provided for each section, and other mentions are being made in the text. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Moldavia lost Pokutia when Alexandru cel Bun was crowned as prince. That was the condition that the Poles forced on him, if he wanted to reign Moldavia. The region was regained by Stefan in the 1497-1498 campaign and was then lost in the Obertyn battle.

That was the missing piece of the puzzle, then. Will add. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it looks now, the article is a mess. I think it was a mistake to merge several different articles into one.

Ah.. yeah. The original articles, of course, were all top class, right? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You created a new article about the Moldavian army using my material and my sources.

And? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was necesary, as the article looks somehow incomplete, but for the record, the first mestioning of a Moldavian military fleet, that I know of, is in 1476 when Stefan sends Alexander Gabras together with 300 Moldavians to Mangup-Kale to defend the city; but that was just a transport navy.

You yourself give reason for not including this reference (transport navy, troops on vessels that may just as well have been contracted, etc.). Besides, that is what the link provided gives as first reference. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this passage:

[A deep crisis was to follow Alexandrus long reign, with his successors battling each other in a succession of wars that divided the country until the murder of Bogdan II and the ascension of Petru Aron in 1451.]

Actually, the crises intensified when Aron came to power, because Stefan involved both Hunyadi and Dracula in the conflict. The latter helped Stefan, but did so by taking a risk - as he wanted to avoid a conflict with the Ottomans. Stefan would get into conflict with both Poland and Hungary, and eventually invade Transylvania, because of Aron.

Yes, read the passage further on. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one makes no sense:

[Under Stephen the Great, who took the throne with help from Kazimierz IV of Poland in 1457, the state reached its most glorious period]

It was Dracula who helped him with 7,000 horsemen. Poland would recognize whoever was stronger and loyal, etc.

This was to indicate that, between Hungary and Poland, Stephen got close to the latter. The whole section puts this into perspective. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I say that the article is a mess and I don't see you doing much to improve it.

Yes, you're right. I remove POV and questionable data, I create a flow in information, I add info about 400 years of history which were not even dealt with, I move this beyond provincial obsessions about "Romanianness", and I am the one debasing the article... Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of making hundreds of minor edits in a matter of minutes, better make one edit. It can be done.

I have already answered to this criticism. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[End copied from Anittas email]

- Jmabel | Talk 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More from Anittas

Here's his reply; would you please consider giving him your email address, so I'm not constantly called on to play intermediary? I realize you'd like to keep the correspondence public. You can just tell him you'll feel free to post anything he sends: you can paste it here as easily as I can.

Or you can communicate on his talk page, the one place he can edit while blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Begin copied text from Anittas' email] Thanks Joe, here is my follow-up to him:

It is Roman I himself who claimed to have ruled the land "from the mountains to the sea." See my previous message to you where it says the date in which the act was signed. He did not specify which sea, but assuming that it's not the Red Sea, but the Black Sea, it could only have been around Cetatea Alba. The text which I gave you quotes Roman. Unless Roman lied, I think we should trust his words; but in either case, Roman, as well as the author of the book, are two credible sources. One can speculate things in an article, if there are sources. Therefore, I ask you to add the fragment where Roman claims to have ruled to the sea, implying Cetatea Alba. Iorga also quotes Roman in Istoria lui ªtefan cel Mare, 1904 (new edition 1966), Bucharest p. 23: "...Roman indrazni, calcind drepturile muntene asupra apelor de la miazazi, sa-si zica domn "din munte in mare."

Reference about Podolia:

Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries, Spinei Victor, 1986 Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, p. 219

[Suggestive of the extension of Moldavia's dominance under Petru Musat is a passage in the Russian chronicles concerning the events of 1386, when Basil, son of the Moskow knez Dimitrie Donskoj, fled from the Horde "in the country of Podolia to the greater Vlachs of voivode Petru."]

...

P. 220

[From these texts it would appear that the voivode of Moldavia controlled Podolia]

...

[Even if the voivode of Suceava actually exercised his dominance over Little Podolia, it was short-lived. According to Russo-Lithuanian chronicles, after the death of his brothers, knez Feodor Koriatovich advanced with the Lithuanian army in Podolia and subjected it to Lithuania.]

...

[That the Podolian territories are mentioned to be in the sphere of Moldavia's interests is validated by the fact that at the attack of Witold in 1393 against the possessions of Feodor Koriatovich, the soldiers sent by Roman I strengthened the garrisons of the Podolia's strongholds.]

Anittas: again, it is not certain under which conditions Roman and later, Petru, controlled the land. However, a Russian source claims that he did just that, and we could add that as an uncertainty.

About the name:

The Pope was not the only one who called the land of Moldo-vlachia. Byzantine and Moldavia's own voivodes did this also, in the beginning. This indicates that they were aware of their connection to Wallachia, as people. Not politically. Isn't that a significant thing to mention? Poland always called Moldavia for Wallachia and Wallachia (Tara Rumuneasca) for Bessarabia, but we don't have to include that.

I did not say that Moldavia was originally named Bogdania. Where did you read this? In the article started by me, I wrote that the Ottomans called Moldavia for Bogdania or Bogdan. They also had another name for it -- Kara-Bogdan.

As for the etymology of the name of the river, thus also for the country, is supposed to come from a boyar named Allexandro Moldaowicz who served the Galician knez George Iurij. We find his name in a document from 1334. There are no concrete proof, but it's a theory that could be added to the rest.

About Dragos and Bogdan: you should say that they were Vlachs. I checked the articles and it seems that in the Dragos article, it is not mentioned that he was Vlach. Someone most have removed that passage. Anyway, they were Vlachs as Louis's own chronicle calls them that, as well as other documents. There's no secret in that.

About Stefan: again, Stefan was not helped by Poland in any shape to seize the throne of Moldavia. He swore allegiance to Poland as vassal and counted on their assistance, but Poland did nothing to help him. After several negotiations, I believe they agreed to expell Aron; the latter taking refuge in Transylvania. You should formulate the text better, or better yet remove the whole passage, which is incorrect.

About Olaha: you removed my sentence that mentioned this voivode. I can't understand why you did this. Here is where I had mentioned him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Moldavia&oldid=58376010#Prior_to_its_foundation

He was mentioned as a Ruthenian duke, but his name clearly shows that he was either ethnically Vlach, or had Vlach roots.

If you wonder more, you can post your questions on my talkpage. It's simpler this way than using Joe as a proxy. [End copied text from Anittas' email]

Italian elections

Hi! I've created the general elections articles for Italy from 1953 to 1992. Some of them have also a short description of the results. Can you give a check to them? Also, if you've time, the 1994 is missing... too complicate for me!! Ciao and thanks!! --Attilios 09:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Then why not help me remove them from Szekely and Moldovans? 72.144.114.25 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, religion and historical separation are really the key difference between Serbs and Croats. However, they've been separated enough to create a historical separation of gene flow. This is very different from say ...Moldovans and Romanians. 72.144.114.25 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't serve a purpose. They end up repeating the say numbers. This is bad. 72.144.114.25 18:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but race exists. There's scientific data to back it up. Whether you "believe" it doesn't exist is really your opinion and should be separate from the encyclopedia. An ethnic group is defined by their genetic and cultural similarity. 72.144.114.25 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that by including a infobox we end up creating the notion that these people are not included in the census as "Croats" etc.. We end up repeating numbers. I'm just trying to prevent that from happening. 72.144.114.25 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. There are a group of main Slavic ethnic groups, and then there are a few smaller one (Sorbs, for example). But a lot of the main Slavic ethnic groups sometimes identify themselves by the region they live in. For example, if I was a Romanian like yourself but I lived in a small town in Transylvania, I may identify myself as "Transylvanian." I could do this for numerous reasons:

a cultural tie to the region
a lineage in the region
a dialect in my small town or region

but all in all, I'm still part of the Romanian ethnos - so in the census I would count as a Romanian. If we add an infobox to the sub-groups like "Transylvanian" (for example) then we end up repeating numbers in the Romanian infobox, and giving off the notion that Transylvanians aren't Romanian at all. 72.144.114.25 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]