Talk:Q10957559

Official flag of the Moldavian Principality in 1831-1859

Usually, the last officially approved flag is used for illustration.

• 
  Regulamentul Organic (Q2029991). 1831
• 
  Moldavian and Wallachian Flags. 1849
• 
  Paris Convention (1858) (Q4345131). 1858

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This flag is hardly known to anyone (I have not seen it before) and no one really associates it with the Principality of Moldavia. I think it is just going to cause confusion to use this bicolor version. It is better to go with the most popular one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Flag of Moldavia.svg. This is a modern author's drawing. There is no such drawing in historical documents. See en:Wikipedia:No original research. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Modern adaptations of historical flags are perfectly allowed. It isn't original research. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Official language

Moldovan language

Regulamentul Organic (Q2029991). 1831 (Regulamentele organice: două ţări - două limbi):
RO: Reglementul Organic al Moldovei. art.421 stipula: „Cursul tuturor îmvăţăturilor va fi în limba moldovenească, nu numai pentru înlesnirea sholerilor şi cultevirea limbii şi patriei, ce încă şi pentru cuvîntul că toate pricinile publice trebue să se tractarisască în această limbă, pe care lăcuitorii o întrebuinţază şi în sărbările bisericeşti.”
RO: Reglementul Organic al Valahiei. art.366 suna: "...Cursul învăţăturilor va urma în limba rumînească, nu numai pentru înlesnirea şcolarilor şi desăvărşirea limbii ţării, ci încă şi pentru că toate trebile publice trebue a să tracta într'această limbă, care este ceia ce să întrebuinţează şi întru toate slujbele sfintei credinţe." --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Лобачев Владимир, Regulamentul Organic was written by Russians for Romanians, not by Romanians for Romanians. What is put in that text shouldn't even be counted. Let's also take in account that it was made in 1831, a year in which nationalism was barely flourishing in the Danubian Principalities. For this reason, the language used in Regulamentul Organic is "Moldavian". People did not have a strong ethnic identity and consciousness and simply identified with the country they lived in because "it made sense". This happened throughout Europe at the time. The fact that the official language of Wallachia was said to be Romanian is because Wallachia in its native language was called Țara Românească. If it happened to be called Valahia, then the language that would be in the document would be Vălăhean, not Romanian, but this isn't the case.

Even if thus was untrue, Moldavian from the Regulamentul Organic had nothing to do with the modern artificial Moldovan "language", which uses an alphabet derived from Russian. Why would the principality of Moldavia use an alphabet derived from Russian? Specially when it existed before Russia. They already had their own alphabet, [1]. By the way, you may be interested in reading this article [2] (from a Moldovan academic journal, not a random website) that is full of quotes from historic Moldavians stating their opinion about their own language. You can check the quotes to see if they are true. And after all this, even if you managed to refute all my arguments, you would have 0 reasons to include the Russian name of Moldavia.

I think I have made all my points clear after this message but I will still wait a few hours to wait for your reply or revert back. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh and read the last comment at this page you linked... Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is not a single document that Romanian was the official language in the Moldavian principality. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And there is not a single document from Moldavia that says the "Moldavian" language was different from that of Wallachia or Transylvania. The modern artifact spoken in the Republic of Moldova is simply not comparable. As you can see on the link I posted, some rulers of Moldavia themselves said they spoke Romanian or recalled a relation between Moldavia's language and Romanian. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also ask you to stop adding false names in "Moldovan" to pages about figures that existed centuries ago. This is just false. Modern-day Moldovan is not equivalent to the historic Moldavian dialect. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am based on documents, and you are based on your own opinion. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are interpretating those documents in the ways you want to justify using an artificial language. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't bring any documents at all. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The website from the academic journal from Moldova is enough to support my claims. Linking again in case you forgot: [3]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Even from the name of the site (limbaromana.md) and the content of the article, it can be seen that the main task is to prove that the Moldovan language does not exist. Anything that contradicts this doctrine, the article ignores and does not mention. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"it can be seen that the main task is to prove that the Moldovan language does not exist" obviously... those Moldovans who recognize their language as Romanian say precisely Moldovan does not exist as a separate language. Which is backed by linguists. Your POV and opinion is minoritary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There are different points of view. You support one of them, which you consider to be the only correct one, ignoring the other. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And you do the same with the other point of view, going as further as to propose replacing any mention of "Romanian" with "Moldavian" before the 19th century. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Not. I am only against replacing the Moldavian language with Romanian based on modern ideas. In the Moldavian principality and the Wallachian principality, they spoke mutually understandable, but different idioms (dialect or languages). In Soviet Moldavia, literary norms also differed from those of socialist Romania. And there is no need to replace them. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope. That's false. Wallachian and Moldavian have always been one single language, and always will. They are 100% (okay, 99%) mutually intelligible. Trust me, I am the Romanian here. If the languages were different, as in Aromanian or others, I'd admit it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin are also mutually intelligible (until the end of the 20th century they were considered one language). But today, according to the Constitutions of these countries, these are different languages. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And what status do they hold in Wikimedia projects? In the English Wikipedia pages of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sarajevo, Bosnian is not used. Also, editors don't try to promote the modern Montenegrin language in articles related to the Principality of Zeta, for example. You do exactly that. Keep the artificial Moldovan language to Soviet and modern history, not to the Middle Ages. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not promoting. But replacing the Moldovan language everywhere with the Romanian language contrary to the source is wrong. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

But you have removed sources too in several occassions. And the sources I remove are always Russian ones, never from outside. I wonder why. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I propose to agree that we indicate what is in the sources. Whether we like them or not. Let the page visitors decide and draw their own conclusions. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regulamentul Organic (Q2029991) were the official main law (Constitution) of the principality before the union with Wallachia. And this law unambiguously specifies the language: Moldovan language. Not a single document established another language in the 19th century. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I ask you for the 100th time, give me a source linking the name for the Romanian language used there and the 20th century invention of the USSR. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And I ask you to give me a source linking the name of the Romanian language used in the Wallachian Reglementul Organic and the language of contemporary Romania. Both languages differed from contemporary ones in vocabulary and alphabet. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you proposing that Wallachian is also a different language? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Rutenian language

Seal of Stephen the Great

Here is the seal of Stephen III the Great. Can you translate the legend of this seal from Romanian to English? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because it is in the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, which I don't understand. That doesn't mean that script isn't in Romanian. Wallachia also used Cyrillic. Does that mean there also is a Wallachian language? Or is it Romanian? Why is the language written in Cyrillic in Wallachia Romanian but the one spoken in Moldavia isn't? A different alphabet does not mean the language is different. Per the website I cited, Stephan the Great said he spoke "Vlach" ("limba valahă"). Doesn't "Vlach" sound closer to Wallachia (Valahia) than to Moldavia (Moldova)? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a Rutenian language – Ruthenian (Q13211): ПЄЧАТЬ ІѠ СТЕФАНЪ ВОЕВѠДА ГѠСПОДАР ЗЕМЛИ МѠЛДАВСКОИ.

Those who know Russian will understand without translation – Russian (Q7737): ПЕЧАТЬ ИО СТЕФАН ВОЕВОДА ГОСПОДАРЬ ЗЕМЛИ МОЛДАВСКОЙ.

But those who know Romanian will not understand. Translation from the Rutenian language: SEAL IO OF STEFAN VOIVODE LORD OF THE LAND OF MOLDAVIA. "IO" is an abbreviation of Ioann, that is, by the grace of God. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you can readd that if you want, I don't even remember removing it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic in Romania

Old Church Slavonic was the main language used for administrative (until the 16th century) and liturgical purposes (until the 17th century) by the Romanian principalities, being still occasionally used in the Orthodox Church until the early 18th century. In practice, this is a Vlach-Moldavian literary standard in the Middle Bulgarian language.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I never denied this. I did not remove any mention to Old Church Slavonic from the item. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Землѧ Молдавскаѧ (Church Slavic).

Sources:

• Параска П. Ф. Внешнеполитические условия образования Молдавского феодального государства. АН МССР — Кишинев: Штиинца, 1981. — С. 60, 85, 134
• Молдаване: Очерк истории, этнографии, искусствоведения / Отв. ред. Я. С. Гросул; АН МССР — Кишинев: Штиинца, 1977. — С. 26
• Руссев Н. Спорные вопросы начальной истории Молдавского средневекового государства // Журнал «Русин», № 2 (20), 2010
• File:Seal of 1392. Roman I of Moldavia.jpg
• File:Seal of Stephen III of Moldavia.svg
• File:Sigiliul lui Ștefăniță Vodă 1518.jpg
• File:Sigiliul lui Petru Rareș 1533 (Siegel des Petru Rareș 1533).jpg --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Official coat of arms of 1855

Coat of arms of 1855 on the passport of the Moldavian principality

Drawing of the coat of arms of 1855 from the passport

Why do we illustrate an article about a principality that existed before 1859 with the coat of arms of of Stephen III of Moldavia in 1457-1504? After all, there are coats of arms of the 19th century. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)