Talk:List of monarchs of Moldavia

I allowed myself to make three changes: - I removed "the Horseshoe" from Ioan Potcoavă - it is a name, not a nickname (ie: you would not translate "Lapusneanu" as "from/of Lapusna"; these are given names).

- I translated Iancu Sasul as "John the Saxon", on the basis of Iancu being a local variant of "Ioan".

- Most importantly - Ioan Voda is first and foremost "the Terrible" ("cel Cumplit"). That was the monicker given to him by his contemporaries. Ok, by his boyar contemporaries, but there was no contemporary version of "the Brave" - that only surfaced with Ceausescu, who wanted to present his actions as legitimate and healthy violence against a decadent nobility etc., with Ioan as an "ally of the people" (a definately ideologically-induced judgment). You might meet it in other sources, but they are no different and all are written no less than four centuries after he died. I left viteaz as an alternative, but not for the main link. Be reasonable and don't switch it back.Dahn 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC) edit: Ion Vodă Armeanul is also contemporary.Dahn 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Scars et al

Please, Greier. You are introducing a criterion which you favour, but one not attested by sources except for Ortelius' unbalanced account. Dahn 21:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But this paragraph "however, such accounts are challenged by the fact that persons born with noted physical disabilities, or even those with acquired scars, were attested to have been prevented from occupying the throne" contradicts the actuall facts: a person with an aquired scar did took the throne (e.g.). How can that be when they were attested to have been prevented?

Again, Bogdan was blinded after occupying the throne (the exception that is indicated in the very next sentence). Dahn 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And again, we don`t know what Ortelius meant!!!! Maybe by "mark" it meant a tatoo, or maybe a skin incision, or maybe something else, or maybe he was just fantasizing... But as the law (aparantely) prevented people with congenital disorders, I fail to see how that mark could be considered that it "challenged" the right to rule greier 09:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He presumably is talking about burning with a rod, "as the Thracians did blahblah". My instincts tell me to remove it altogether, since it is pure dementia: if it was visible enough to mention, why don't others mention it...

We don`t know why, but if there`s one source, we must put it. Probably "others" didn`t mentioned it because they thought it wasn`t worht mentioning... Just look at the Moldavian hrisovs of that time... It`s all something like:

În anul 6969 [1461], iulie 5, a lovit cu război Ştefan voievod Ţara  Secuiască. 
În anul 6970 [1462], iunie 22, au lovit cu tunul pe Ştefan voievod la cetatea Chiliei. 
În anul 6971 [1463], iulie 5, şi-a luat Ştefan voievod doamnă pe cneghina Evdochia de la Kiev, sora lui Semen ţarul.
........
.....
..
etc..

So it`s clear that (at least) in Moldavian chronicles, you won`t find much about this... greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...(and, instead, they indicate that anyone who had been scarred in any way before getting on the throne was not eligible)?...

False. greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if it wasn't visible enough, how come Ortelius knew about it (if a tree falls into a forest... it's like saying they were all freemasons or warewolves)? Dahn 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ortelius wrote about it because he probably had a "seed of thruth". Yes, I admit he may had been fantasising for "commercial" purposes, or he mught simply missundertood a real custom, or he might of had just trusted to much some rumours... But I don`t think you`re right in completely removing that paragraph only because you think it`s "pure dementia"... greier 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Greier. I base myself on attested fact and majority consensus, not on an Ortelius fantasy which is only commented and interpreted by you. Dahn 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look Dan, this has nothing with Ortelius. My edit is about that comment, which is false: someone with a scar aquired in battle was not prevented from ocupying the throne. I`ve forgot the name, but there was a voivode who was allowed to rule, as the boyars decided that the diformity was aquired in battle greier 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Under any circumstance, your addition to the text makes no sense. Come up with the name of that ruler, if he did in fact exist, and we'll work it out into a logically-constructed sentence. Dahn 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the List of the rulers of Moldavia was already seriously revised and ammended. See C. Rezachevici "Encyclopaedia of the Wallachia and Moldova rulers" - the best source in this moment. Please note that you use some translation and comments actually non-accurate and even false. As an example Bogdan cel Orb (son of Stephen the Great) was not blind or blinded, he had also both eyes. The word "chior" is a turkish one and not used in that time. Bogdan simply had an illness of his eye(s) - glaucom. Also Ioan Potcoava - Potcoava (Horseshoe) was his nickname indeed. Also Iancu Sasu(l) (not Ioan Sasul) - was not saxon but his mother was. Actually in that time the meaning of the word Sasul is not Saxon but Protestant. Not Catholic not Orthodox but Protestant by his mother. Please see also the name of Sas, the 2nd voievod - known only by his nickname. By the way, Balc (not Bâlc) didn't rule. And many others. No mention about many rulers not included in the list and many rulers that were not existed. No mention about the periods. First of all I think is better to understand what means Voivod (correct: Voievod). The word Hospodar is a word used only for its exotic sound and the meaning is merely non-appreciative. See also Hospodar/Gospodar. (March 14th, 2007) Dan Loghin dan_loghin@yahoo.com

Presidents

Moldopolo, find one source saying that Moldovan presidents are in any way successors of the Moldavian princes, and we'd have something to talk about. Until then, you're pushing original research or disrupting to make a point. Dahn (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It may interest you to know, Moldopolo, that Romania was created in 1859, had two capitals (one of which was Iaşi), two assemblies, and a single ruler on two thrones. The institutions were merged over the following decade by the prince-elect, and the name "Romania" was officially adopted in the 1860s. This, as any mainstream historian will tell you, means that Romania was the successor of Moldavia for all that implies, and that Romania existed before 1878. Moldova results from the break-up of the USSR, and, under just one interpretation, may be considered a successor to the Moldavian Democratic Republic - which itself never claimed to be a successor to the Moldavian state, and eventually itself merged into Romania. Both Moldova and the Moldavian Democratic Republic exercised their sovereignty over the backwater of medieval Moldavia, were none of the Moldavian cities, let alone capitals, was located, were only a handful of Moldavian princes set foot and only in passing, and were no one but Moldopolo ever seriously implied a Carpathian or Bukovinan irredenta. Enough with the tricks, and get yourself some sources if you plan to contest any of this. Dahn (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The list President of Moldova gives a detailed list of all rulers, not limiting to the function of Presidents (which exists since 1991 only). For further discussion with you, we could only move on, when you first provide a verifiable source for the edits you've made. There is no source, nor external link on this page, and you try to justofy everything, including replacing word creation by independence of Romania, only with your Greater Romania crap propaganda style rhetorics. This is encyclopedia and not a forum for expression of your irredentist POV--Moldopodo (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, wikipedia is not a source - the fact that a list was created ort fabricated doesn't validate anything. Furthermore, I am simply disgusted by your attempt to misrepresent me and pass your original research for a solid argument - not that it would matter what I support, but I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I do not entertain any unionist or irredentist desire, let alone a Greater Romanian ideal. If you have to lie in order to carry out a conversation, I have no reason to even mind your nonsensical propaganda. Get it once and for all that I edit this page not to favor one side or the other, but to respect the historical truth and the semblance of common sense - which you have constantly failed to do. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for my sources, have the decency to look up any reliable source on the history of Romania, and you'll get the idea. You not mastering basic historical facts (such as when Romania was united and by whom) does not mean you can go and add your own speculation - in fact, I'm willing to bet that you have just recently discovered this page during your convoluted campaign to identify the principality west of the Prut with the republic east of the Prut (which is nothing but a fringe opinion mainly entertained by you, in what is yet another one of the attempts to turn a verifiable issue on its head. See WP:BEANS for what you are doing here. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that none of the post-1866 rulers of Romania laid claim to the throne of Moldova through their title, so the continuity ends pretty much when the Romanians deposed Cuza. Also, presidents of Moldova is put as see also, and doesn't imply direct continuity of the Moldavian throne. Bessarabia was never a backwater (except during late Russian and Romanian rule), and it was site to some of the most important battles, some of them deciding the fate of Moldavia. Moldova respects the will of the people, unlike Romania, and thus can't have irredentist claims over a region that doesn't want to be part of it.Xasha (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is absurd. First of all, the changes operated by Cuza in his official capacity were functional during the election of Carol - there was no need to "claim" the throne, whatever that means, because the throne had been merged with the Wallachian one by the one person with legal power to do so (Cuza himself). The fact that it was a backwater (secondary to the whole issue) will not be cancelled by battles fought on Bessarabian territory - the fact stands that it was underpopulated, underdeveloped, and did not have any city to speak of (in fact, much of the historical region of Bessarabia had already been out of Moldavia for hundreds of years before 1812). All capitals of Moldavia were west of the Prut. I actually agree that Romanians administered the region very poorly, that Russians actually developed it (according to their goals), but this has nothing to do with the marginal and highly inflammatory claim that the republic of Moldova is a successor to the Moldavian principality. Moldavia continued to exist as a state after Bessarabia was occupied, and that that state took the decision to unite itself with Wallachia. The rest is POV-pushing and original research, and I am yet to see a source stating the contrary. As for your speculation about "irredentist claims" and "the will of the people", they are merely straw men that fail to address anything in the issue at hand. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, nobody claimed the throne of Moldova after 1866. Hey, the only real city in Moldavia, if you were to compare it with Western Europe, was Iasi. Next in importance came the two trading towns Kilia and Belgorod, that, albeit under Moldavian rule for short time, were the most important on this side of the Black Sea during the classical period of Moldavia. One should not forget other important centres like Khotin, Bender (this had been taken by the Turks too in the 16th and 18th century) and, to a lesser degree, Soroca. If we consider that the only almost-towns in Transpruthian Moldavia were Suceava and Roman, we may conclude that Bessarabia was more urbanized (no matter how stupid this may sound, considering what "urban" meant in Moldavia) before 1812. I fail to see how Western Moldavia, if we exclude Iasi (that was very close to the Pruth), was more developed than Bessarabia. I can't imagine what arguments could the Romanian historiography bring to school children to inculcate such image in their minds. Moldova wasn't free either (remember Turks?), and Bessarabia kept the old Moldavian laws for at least another 50 years after 1812, so here's another false dichotomy that weakens your argument. Yes, Bessarabia eventually lost its autonomy, autonomy which Transpruthian Moldova regained later thanks to the same Russians. But this doesn't mean no continuity whatsoever between the Moldavian principality, the Moldovan DR and the Moldovan SSR (that became fully independent and changed its name to Moldova in 1991).Xasha (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claimed it because it had united itself with Wallachia! Why is this so hard to comprehend? As for it not being "developed", let me fill you on the topic of discussion here: Moldavia existed outside Bessarabia; at no time did anyone claim that Russian rule in Bessarabia had created an alternative Moldavian state. Nobody could care less if Bessarabia kept Moldavian laws: by the same reasoning, the United States president would be a claimant to the British throne; it also doesn't matter shit if Bessarabia was or wasn't autonomous, since it still wasn't Moldavia. It also matter naught if Moldavia was under Ottoman sovereignty (or Russian, in 1821-1855!) - it still was a state, and the only state standing for Moldavia as far as even the Russians were concerned. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stay civil. I refuse to reply to inflammatory messages.Xasha (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is called filling talk pages with pointless rhetorics, trying to make one's POV in such a way presentable. User:Dahn has not cited one single source. I suggest start discussing only after we have a source, unless then it remains User:Dahn's imagination (to say the least).--Moldopodo (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what to source and I I'll source it. In the meantime, I asked you repeatedly to provide sources for your claims, and all you have done in exchange was to bring my supposed stance into discussion and misrepresent it. Dahn (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This clearly shows your desire to be as little constructive as possible in your contributions. All you want is basicly write what you want and the way you think, without any source. Asking in return sources from my side is rather wicked, but at the same time quite typical of a Romanian editor. Like I said, I am not engaging into useless rhetorics. Once you provide a source for your assertions, we could move on. Also please stop the edit war. --Moldopodo^talk 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential decree

2009 is declared by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Moldova as "The 650th Anniversary of Foundation of the Moldavian State"

Can we use some actual reliable sources? This has no more value than Ceauşescu's "2050th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Dacian State", with Romania as its successor. bogdan (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't go any farther to the source than the Decree itself. Was there a Decree for Ceausescu's 2050th Anniversary? I mean why would Moldavian legislation be unreliable?--Moldopodo^talk 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Decrees are primary sources. They might source policies, but they sure as hell don't make for scholarly interpretation, and they are by definition biased. Furthermore, the decree does not (and cannot) say that Moldova is legal successor to Moldavia, just that this government considers it a historical precedent (just like the Macedonian gvt may think ancient Macedonia is its ancestor, and just like Ceauşescu was getting high on Burebista's "precedence" - yes, also with an official decree). Aside from being inept, such a statement cannot replace the facts, and there is no indication that it aims to replace the facts. Even if it would count for something, it would be by far outweighed by the gazillion legal documents allowing for the Moldo-Wallachian union, recognizing it, or referring to Iaşi-ruled Moldavia as the standing entity throughout the first half of the 19th century (documents issued by Moldavian, Wallachian, Romanian, Ottoman, Austrian, French, British, Sardinian, Italian, Prussian, and, yes, Russian administrative institutions).

2. There are literally thousands of third-party sources clearly indicating not just that Moldavia as a state has Romania for a successor, but also the intrinsic connection between that Moldavia and Wallachia before the ultimate date of union. None of them bother to mention the supposed "legacy" supposedly claimed by the present-day Moldovan state. Here is just a small sample of quotes clarifying this as clarifying goes:

Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, Cornell UP, 2001, p.131: "In 1812, Russia annexed the portion of old Moldova [i.e.: Moldavia, as per the explanation at the top of the same page loc. cit.] between the Dniester and Prut rivers, inventing the name "Bessarabia" for the province. [...] Meanwhil, what was left of old Moldova united with Wallachia in 1859 to form the first Romanian state, with the Prut River forming the first Russian-Romanian border until 1918. Thus, while Wallachians and southern Moldovans were forming a Romanian national identity for the first time, the Bessarabians, living in a very different cultural milieu, developed a distinct if inchoate Moldovan regional identity."

Barbara Jelavich, Russia and the Formation of the Romanian National State, 1821-1878, Cambridge UP, 2005. Hard to summarize the entire book (note the title!), but here's a relevant tidbit referring to Cuza's rule and the transition to Carol's rule (p. 118): "Despite the fact that the official name of the state was still the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, a Romania was in fact in existence."

Frederick Kellogg, The Road to Romanian Independence, Purdue UP, 1995. Hard to encapsulate the whole book, but it is quite clear that it defines Moldavia as the state which united with Romania, and, describing the road between creation and recognition, clearly mentions that Moldavia was what merged into Romania. See for example page 18: "France had suggested the idea of a foreign prince at the 1858 conference on Moldavia and Wallachia and raised the issue again in 1866. [...] Austria, Russia and Britain [...] resisted the notion, forseeing that any changes in Romania would imperil Europe's equilibrium. Austria had the most to lose in fostering the embryonic Romanian state [but was] ready to accept a united Moldo-Wallachia in order to assure an entente with France [...]."

James Stuart Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas Charles Pappas, An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires, Greenwood, 1994, p.481: "[Southern Budjak] remained with Moldova when it united with Wallachia to become the United Principalities (later Romania)."

Victoria Clark, Why Angels Fall: A Journey Through Orthodox Europe from Byzantium to Kosovo, Macmillan, 2000, p.212: "Transylvania, the third of the three provinces making up the country that was named Romania when Wallachia and Moldavia were united in the mid-nineteenth century etc."

Morgan Dalphinis, Language, Blacks and Gypsies, Whiting & Birch, 2000, p.42: "In 1859 Moldavia and Wallachia were for all practical purposes united into an independent [state]."

Balazs Trencsenyi, Michal Kopecek, Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770-1945), Central European UP, 2006, p.42: "In 1859, the Assemblies of Moldavia and Wallachia elected Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza (r.1859-1866) as the common ruler of both countries, thus creating the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia."

Christof Heyns, Frans Viljoen, The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level, Martinus Nijhoff, 2002, p.468: "Moldavia and Wallachia were united in 1859 and, following the Independence War of 1877, obtained full sovereignty and became the Kingdom of Romania"

It also appears that the comparatively fewer sources who refer to Moldavia as "Western Moldavia" do so casually, as a means to stress location, and do not in any way indicate that Moldova is the successor of a state (any state) other than the USSR.

I must say I also object to the concerted attacks on other issues on the page, including that on the titles also being used in Wallachia (even though it is factual, the princes were interchangable for a large part of the states' history, and even though the titles corresponded to the same rank in Ottoman hierarchies). Dahn (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All those just show that Moldavia (the only part of it autonomous, that under Ottomans) united with Wallachia under Cuza, it doesn't deny continuity in Bessarabia. See here the BBC country profile for Moldova, it begins its story with the Moldavian principality, not with 1917/1940/1990. Also, Wallachian rulers always called themselves with the Bulgarian term "gospodin", as opposed to the Moldavian "hospodar", used also in other states under East Slavic influence, as Lithuania, Poland and Muscovy. As for "voivode", it was used all over the Balkans, so it's not something specific to Moldavia and Wallachia. As for the rank in the Ottoman hierarchy, they are comparable to the late rulers of Crimea and some Asian principalities.Xasha (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, I had the impression that you were above charades and equivocations. The obvious principle behind bringing sources is not what sources "don't say", but what they do say - nowhere does the text you invoke claim that Moldova is a successor to Moldavia, but merely the fact that its territory was part of Moldavia (which nobody denies). Furthermore, we are discussing the continuity of the Moldavian state, and at no moment in its history until 1917 was anything in Bessarabia a state (and, when it was, it made no such "replacement" claim). The one state here was Moldavia, which continued to exist until forming Romania together with Wallachia.

As for the title: in English, the name hospodar is almost exclusively used for the leaders of both principalities in equal terms (look it up). In Slavonic and its Romanian equivalents, the term varied considerably and had a bunch of other spellings (just like "voivode"). Moreover, the two states were the only ones using the term as such from the 17th century onwards (when it passed into English with this exclusive meaning, and when there were no Muscovy, Bulgaria, Lithuania to speak of, and when Poland had for long been a kingdom). And no, the point was not about how the two countries compare to other states under Ottoman suzerainty (let alone how you would compare them), but about how they compare to each other. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As for adding the annexation of Bessarabia and "Leaders of Moldova" to the list (with a "cunning" link to something that opens in 1940) upon mention of Bessarabia's annexation: not only should this this list refrain from endorsing one-off un-historical statements based on original research (per above), but also note that the Moldovan Republic is but part of Bessarabia (at best, it is a successor to Bessarabia - except that Bessarabia was not an independent state - and just maybe the Moldavian Democratic republic - which could be at best be said to be the first stately equivalent of Bessarabia), and that Bukovina and Jedisan and Ciceu and the Budjak and various horde polities were also in and out of Moldavia, which does not make them "successors of Moldavia" under any definition. Just as well, the article doesn't start by listing/linking to Hunnic/Cuman/Pecheneg chieftains (although they to were around in the area before the state was founded), nor with Roman emperors (although the limes once stretched into Moldavia), and does not end with Romanian presidents.

In short: the changes you advance in the article are: unsourcable, speculative, POV-ed, unreasonable and whimsical. Dahn (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One final time: Xasha, above you have scholarly third-party sources showing that Romania is considered the one successor to Romania (with explicit or implicit mention of this applying to leadership, as the very notion of "rulers" would imply that this article is about a state), whereas Moldova and Bessarabia aren't. I could cite many more, but I feel like citing this fact is equivalent to you sending me over to source the fact that the Earth is round. You need to find at least one expert source explicitly endorsing another version of events for us to even be having a conversation on this issue. Do you have such a source? Dahn (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(This was written as a reply to the message Dahn posted at 15:56, but since it covers things in Dahn's latest message, I'll put it here.)Sory, but none of your source is unequivocal about the relation between Moldavian principality and the Moldovan republic. And it would be unfair and plain wrong to attribute to them things they don't support. I really fail to see why you're trying so hard to delete Moldova from this list. I thought Romanian nationalist education of the Ceausescu and early post-Ceausescu era hadn't affected you too much, but maybe I was wrong. As I already said, just having a link to the presidents of Moldova doesn't imply direct continuity between the two entities. Also, a lot of sources refer to Moldavia and Wallachia (and Serbia) as Ottoman or Danubian provinces, so another problem arises here: to what extent is Ottoman Moldavia to be considered a state (as opposed to an autonomous province) in the 18th century.

I could show you hundreds of medieval Moldavian documents (both pure Slavic, or Moldavian with Slavic titles, as were usual latter) showing only the form "hospodar" (also transliterated "gospodar"), while another tens of Wallachian documents that use only the form "hospodin" (also translit. "gospodin"). Also, since "hospodar" and "voievod" were also used all over Eastern Europe, I don't see the reason why delete this factual information.

Nobody claims succesion from those chieftains, so there's no point in adding them here.Xasha (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are all unequivocal, because they all speak of Moldavia as uniting with Romania in stages after 1859 (which would have to exclude Bessarabia). Not only does this exclude the possibility of any polity other than Romania being successor to Moldavia, but "finding sources" to refute Moldova's supposed claim of succession is like asking me to find sources saying that you can't float in the air - I would have to find a secondary source attesting that this is claim exists (i.e. bothering to take it into consideration, if at all true). And please leave out speculations about my background, because I'm getting really tired: at the moment, you turn the article into something supporting the fringe "Moldavian irredentist" idea, contradicting the vast majority of scholarly sources, and making wikipedia adopt an irrational POV.

The sources that supposedly refer to Wallachia and Moldavia as "provinces" are directly contradicted by the vast majority of more recent scholarly works, all of which go into detail about how these states were organized and what their relationship with the Ottoman Empire was. A simple reference to them as "provinces" will have to answer to that argument, and not simply exist.

Your supposed "hundreds of documents" will not refer to the term as it appears in English, not would they touch the fact that this term, in this form, has a narrow meaning that links it to a specific context (i.e. the word has become a word in English, no matter what its uses and supposed variations were in Slavonic or Romanian). Also, wikipedia does not allow users to post conjectures made on the basis of primary sources.

I am yet to see where leaders of Moldova invoke "succession" of Moldavian princes (all I see is that they commemorate the date when the state was founded). Even if they were, it would matter little, since a reliable source would have to endorse it. Ergo, the Republic of Moldova has nothing to do with Moldavia as far as this article is concerned, lest we start listing all polities that were factually connected with Moldavia (from Poland to the Budjak Horde - and no, don't read this as my urging you to do it). Dahn (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just your interpretation. If you would find a source for it it would be better. There's no irredentism here. You and everybody can note that Moldovan presidents are only mentioned in the context of Bessarabia, and this doesn't imply any claim on its western part. The rest of your reply doesn't merit an answer.Xasha (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The context of Bessarabia is irrelevant here, Xasha, and similar to adding a link to the kings of Hungary (to whom Moldavia lost Ciceu) or the Tatar rulers in the Budjak. What's more (and quite scandalous as an agenda), it places a list starting in 1940 in connection with something that took place in 1812, it shifts focus to read as if Moldova existed back then (it did not, for Chrissake!), and it uses the same format as for the legal and immediate successors at the end of the list. This means that it either has no purpose or it makes the reader believe that: a. Moldova is a successor of Moldavia; b. Moldova existed before it existed; c. Bessarabia and Moldova are the same. The very fact that this half of Bessarabia is prioritized over all other parts of Moldavia is stunning in itself (again, why not the Budjak? why not Bukovina?).

As for providing sources: never mind that I am the only person who bothered to invoke sources, but what the hell do you want sources for? What you say is that "saying a doesn't mean not saying b", even though a and b are contradictory. You want to have b in the article? Then find a source saying b. At the moment, you were unable to even provide a secondary (let alone scholarly) source saying that Moldovan presidents are in any way connected with Moldavian princes, and that the Moldavian state is in any way connected with the present-day republic. I repeat one final time: do you have such sources?

As for the hospodar issue: I have already linked to Britannica's use of the term for and only for both countries. Conduct any search among reliable English-language sources, and you will see that the use of the term in any other context is marginal (or, rather, non-existent). The connection between the title and both countries is stated plainly (see here as just one of the hundreds of examples).

Furthermore, you are constantly deleting the reference to the fact that Moldavia's successor is Romania from the lead, even though this is the case made by the sources provided above. You still provide no rationale for that (other than, I assume, "because Moldopodo did it"). Care to explain yourself? Dahn (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Full list of Moldavian leaders

Those who are interested, please, check the list of Moldavian leaders, some names may not answer to the Wikipedia stylistic instructions, also we might want to find a format for naming all sections in the table in a unifed way.--Moldopodo^talk 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the move proposed by Moldopodo was reverted. It was in line with WP:NC.Xasha (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple - the article is at Moldavia, for now. If it gets moved to Principality of Moldavia (which it won't), then by all means carry out the move. And by the way, Moldavia ceased to exist as a principality in 1862, so sooner or later, the recent additions of post-1862 rulers will be erased. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Since in the 80s the Moldavian SSR was generally referred to as simply Moldavia, that is motivated. The rename would have soulved the problem, but you chose to revert it.Xasha (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In no way was this a successor state to this, regardless of its common name, and it would be wrong for us to give that impression. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's way Moldopodo's name was better, since "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."Xasha (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A reader going to Moldavia will find the long-extinct principality, and the word "rulers" in this title leaves little ambiguity that monarchs are being referred to. However, he will also find a note that President of Moldova refers to later leaders. In any case, there really isn't much ambiguity, though I suppose some helpful notes could be added, if really desired, but the title change is a step too far. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a reader who just read an article about MSSR and now want's to find who was leading it at a certain moment? "Ruler" isn't so inherently linked to monarchs as you wish to portrait it. For example Rulers of France, Rulers of Germany and Rulers of Greece all include the presidents of the modern republics. As for the link to the presidents in this article, is so unnoticeable that the average reader will come to the conclusion that the article is incomplete. And again, you should think about what the consumer wants, not about what you like.Xasha (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, the reader reading about the MSSR would find this section quite helpful, no? Biruitorul ^Talk 01:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MSSR was commonly referred as Moldavia, see for example Google Book Search.Xasha (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

True. In no way does that imply, however, that we need to confuse the issue by including the leaders of Soviet Moldavia here; they have their place here. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well. also, add the presidents of the United States of Mexico to the List of Presidents of the United States. They also have the same name. bogdan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Only an expert or a reader from the region would known that Moldavia refers to MSSR. But WP:NC says very clearly that those aren't our target audience. Putting here all post 1862 leaders is not the solution I'm suggesting.Xasha (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask that, since this is (for some reason) a controversial area, any future moves be made using WP:RM? Thanks. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)