Talk:United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading[edit]

In this page we are talking about the history of Romania between 1859 and 1881. There is no reason to erase the actual content of "United Principalities" page. On Romanian language Wikipedia there is a page named "United Principalities" and another page named "Danubian Principalities". The same for Russian language page, which has a star content page about this subject.

In "The establishment of the Balkan national states, 1804-1920 By Barbara Jelavich" book, Chapter 8, page 115, you cand find that:

"In May 1858 the representatives of great powers met in Paris to discuss the Romanian question ... A compromised was again achieved and resulted in the conclusion of the convention of August 19, 1858. This document ... provides a new political organisation for the Principalities. The provincies were to be known as the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia ..."

Page 118: "Since the Ottoman government did not oppose ... in December, 1861, the powers accepted the full unification of the administration of the provincies, although only for the duration of Cuza's reign ... In December Cuza could proclaim: "Romanians, union is accomplished. The Romanian nationality is founded! .. Long Live Romania!" On February 3, 1862, the first single government was formed ... Bucharest now became the capital of the country."

Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=LBYriPYyfUoC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=United+Principalities&source=bl&ots=ZZyrl3Xekh&sig=W9e-SlIE7TyIt8Pncb-OPJcmMAU&hl=en&ei=0RcVSoWHJcSNsAbK4-WcCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA114,M1

From this point the name used in the documents was "United Principalities" or "United Principalities of Romania" and the official name of "Romania" came with the adoption of the new constitution in 1866. (Rgvis (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Principalities → United Principalities of Romania – The current name, United Principalities, is too generic and ambigous. United Principalities of Romania is concise. -- Saturnian (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "United Principalities of Romania" is a more specific and accurate title. I imagine that calling it just the "United Principalities" is not as common as say, calling the USA the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of Truth (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Saturnian (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clear sciolisitic overcautious nonsense, and likely vote stacking sockpuppetry. For one, the state was never known as "United Principalities of Romania" - if anything, it was sometimes known as "United Principlaties of Moldavia and Wallachia"; it was known as "Principality of Romania" from 1862 to 1881, but I wouldn't expect anyone to be familiar with that tidbit. What such a renaming would amount to is historical fraud. Secondly, this shorthand version is common in both English and Romanian sources. Thirdly, I demand that those who claim it is "ambiguous" to actually show what other state or polity was known under this name "United Principalities". Dahn (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check first the infobox and look at United Principalities of Romania (1862–66). Saturnian (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to check anything that some clueless editor put in there. I'm just beginning to make my way through getting some order into the crapload of messy articles we use to cover this particular historical period. More POV nonsense and more smoke & mirrors is the last thing these articles need. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per actual historical facts already presented by Dahn.Anonimu (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check first the infobox and look at United Principalities of Romania (1862–66). Saturnian (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is wrong. In the second part of Cuza's rule the polity was indeed called "United Romanian Principalities" (and even then, the name was only used internally), but never "United Principalities of Romania". However, if "United Principalities" where to be ambiguous (and I've seen no proof of that), the disambiguated name should be "United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia" (7,010 hits vs. the 6 your proposal gets) Anonimu (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you suggest United Romanian Principalities instead of United Principalities ? Saturnian (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read my comment again. If you still have problems with its meaning, I could translate it in Romanian for you.Anonimu (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, why not Romanian since this is related more to Romania? -- Saturnian (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with a suggestion - Move to Principality of Romania. I agree that the proposed title is unnecessary for disambiguation, and not commonly used. However - the scope of the article encompasses 1859-1881. From what I can tell, this polity was called Principality of Romania for 16 of those 23 years. Why shouldn't that be the title of the article? Also - let's be nice, please.Dohn joe (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your suggestion, it could be Principality of Romania. Saturnian (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think we should be bowing down to Saturnian's obsession: the current name is commonly used, was official, and has no negative connotations whatsoever. The Principality of Romania name has several problems: it was never recognized by all the European powers who oversaw the principalities (it was at best co-official), it is rather obscure in general, and it was imposed on the political class through a coup d'etat in 1862 (therefore, it was technically unconstitutional until 1866). I can illustrate all these issues by citing sources, but I don't think I should be pressed to every time an internet meme is born of frustration. I want to see one single factual and researched rationale as to why we should even bother with this spontaneous breach of consensus. The burden falls on the user who proposed it, and who so far only cites himself, and his ludicrous claims that the name we use is ambiguous. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, your language is not appropriate for a talk about an encyclopedia (your words: obsession, born of frustration). I do not understand why you are so against the clear, concise of the historical facts. All facts should be concise as possible. It seems you have some issues regarding Romania. Saturnian (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how you manage to accuse me of personal attacks (the second time, and again groundlessly) in the same post where you imply (thwe third time) that I am anti-Romanian. Dahn (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt the idea to let historical things unclear. It is not about happiness here, it is about education. All facts should be concise as possible. Take a pupil of 15 years and ask him if he can disambiguate alone United Principalities to United Romanian Principalities, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, or Principality of Romania.

Saturnian (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before producing this comment, did you at least check to see what disambiguation means, Saturnian? Because, clue: a 15 year old pupil wouldn't have to, as all those names lead here! Dahn (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you did not understand exactly the real meaning. It is more important that Wikipedia's disambiguation. :) Saturnian (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I couldn't possibly care about sheer speculation as to why we should be dumbing down wikipedia for the use of hypothetical 15-year-olds. Go ahead, call me anti-Romanian for not giving a damn. Dahn (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the general rule (by precedent) is that if a name change of a country or area with an article occurs due to a dynastic or political change, there is a succession box and a separate article for that period of time. See France, Poland, or Kingdom of Russia for examples of this. However, there is a limit to the amount of separation that clarifies before it becomes separation that confuses. This seems to be a dispute over a very small period of time in the grand scheme of things, and it would likely be wiser to have a subsection of a larger article than worry about a short-term name change for only a few years of change over a century ago. MSJapan (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are against concise terms regarding historical facts? Saturnian (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought I made it clear that it is not in line with WP policies and precedents to make the changes you want. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're at it, MSJapan, when do you plan to stop beating your wife? ;) Dahn (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look, it's not my fault she's terrible at Monopoly; she beats herself, really. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind puts a hotel on Baltic Avenue? If I have to contend with that sort of behavior, I'm not taking any responsibility for the consequences of it. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Monopoly-related, no court in this world would convict you. Go in peace. Dahn (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Historical entities should be named the way they are generally referred to in English sources or in the historically most correct way. How some modern people think they should have been named should not factor into our decisions. The entire Balkans area is still caught in the traditional practice of faking history for nationalist purposes, and I see no reason to ignore our usual standards and guidelines in order to support that. Hans Adler 21:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let's talk based on real documents:

- The decree establishing the University of Iasi (1860), as per [1], [2], uses four times the term United Principalities ("Principatele Unite") as the regular form, and, only once, the long form: United Principalities Moldavia and Wallachia (Principatele Unite Moldova si Tara Romaneasca). Another interesting example: The decree establishing the School of Law in Bucharest, [3];

- Four years later (1864), the decree establishing the University of Bucuresti [4] uses the form, Romanian United Principalities (Principatele Unite Romane); Other example: The Decree-Law 1709/1864, [5];

- The new 1866 Constitution established within the first article, that "The Romanian United Principalities constitutes a unique indivisible State, denominated Romania", [6].

Obviously, there is no reason to make any changes.

(Rgvis (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link[edit]

There is a link to Wallachia, and it seems to say Principality of Wallachia, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just that the Wallachia page isn't called Principality of Wallachia. Nothing big, just bugs me a little. 90.191.11.233 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

And also, it's in the flag links in the box to the right
90.191.11.233 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the pretence of Ottoman suzerainty kept up and why was it so common?[edit]

Whilst I recognise, of course, that the Principality of Romania was to all intents and purposes independent, nonetheless it still recognised Ottoman suzerainy and paid tribute. I've noticed his was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Cretan State and the Principality of Samos.

What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Languages and religions[edit]

Some recent edits introduce additional material concerning languages and religions which seems to me to relate to present-day Romania, rather than to the United Principalities, which covered a very much smaller area. Is there someone with a more detailed knowledge of the history of this area who could assess the accuracy of these edits? LynwoodF (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Principalities_of_Moldavia_and_Wallachia&oldid=1205834294"