→Thank you: 17000 slaves |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
*Borsoka, they are all in the citation given, those that aren't simply matter of fact. For instance, Boia verifies not just the quote from Delavrancea, but its attribution by the populace to Stephen himself, and its popularity: "The words are those of the great orator Delavrancea and in no way those of the old ruler, but what does it matter? The image of Stephen the Great that is imprinted in public consciousness owes much more to this play than to any document of the time or scholarly monograph." My "locally" means "in Romania" (and possibly Moldova), and is used for "not throughout the world". [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
*Borsoka, they are all in the citation given, those that aren't simply matter of fact. For instance, Boia verifies not just the quote from Delavrancea, but its attribution by the populace to Stephen himself, and its popularity: "The words are those of the great orator Delavrancea and in no way those of the old ruler, but what does it matter? The image of Stephen the Great that is imprinted in public consciousness owes much more to this play than to any document of the time or scholarly monograph." My "locally" means "in Romania" (and possibly Moldova), and is used for "not throughout the world". [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::**Thank you for your quick answer. Sorry, I think, the quote from Boia's work does not support the text in the article. It does not say that the words are "often attributed" to historical Stephen the Great. If my understanding is correct, the expression "locally" could be exactly determined to avoid misunderstanding. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
::**Thank you for your quick answer. Sorry, I think, the quote from Boia's work does not support the text in the article. It does not say that the words are "often attributed" to historical Stephen the Great. If my understanding is correct, the expression "locally" could be exactly determined to avoid misunderstanding. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::*Yes, it does say just that: that the words of the fictional Stephen are attributed to historical Stephen ''in public consciousness''. But whatever. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler? "It is generally believed" carried ''three citations'', including from the author who rejects the theory that he was elected. Meaning that it is, for all practical purposes, an undisputed fact; the election ''is not''. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
*"Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler? "It is generally believed" carried ''three citations'', including from the author who rejects the theory that he was elected. Meaning that it is, for all practical purposes, an undisputed fact; the election ''is not''. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::**If my understanding is correct, it is not a popular account, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Am I wrong? [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
::**If my understanding is correct, it is not a popular account, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Am I wrong? [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::What is the difference, for Christ? [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"In 1485, Stephen became a participant in the Polish–Ottoman War." This is simply one way to point to the reader that by then the two countries were at war. Stephen signed an alliance with one of them and was invaded by the other. Your request for a citation is simply unreasonable. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
*"In 1485, Stephen became a participant in the Polish–Ottoman War." This is simply one way to point to the reader that by then the two countries were at war. Stephen signed an alliance with one of them and was invaded by the other. Your request for a citation is simply unreasonable. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::**If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen became a "participant" in the Polish-Ottoman War because he signed an alliance with Poland, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? Please note that the cited reliable sources do not write of an alliance. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
::**If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen became a "participant" in the Polish-Ottoman War because he signed an alliance with Poland, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? Please note that the cited reliable sources do not write of an alliance. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
*You really need a citation for the fact that literature in Stephen's day [[Neacșu's letter|was entirely Slavonic]]? All the manuscripts you yourself mentioned in the text are not in Romanian, do look it up. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
*You really need a citation for the fact that literature in Stephen's day [[Neacșu's letter|was entirely Slavonic]]? All the manuscripts you yourself mentioned in the text are not in Romanian, do look it up. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::**If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen contributed to the development of Old Church Slavonic literature, because the chronicles were written in that language, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? There are billions who write texts in English, but I am not convinced that all works contribute to the development of English literature. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
::**If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen contributed to the development of Old Church Slavonic literature, because the chronicles were written in that language, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? There are billions who write texts in English, but I am not convinced that all works contribute to the development of English literature. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::*This is absurd. I simply spell out the language in which all the works were written. And yes, several sources mention that fact, including the added source which states that he influenced literature even outside Romania. But the text you take issue with never said that he indfuenced literature in Slavonic everywhere -- the link clearly refers to Church Slavonic literature ''in Romania''. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Regarding the practice of slavery: the capture of 17,000 slaves in one go is not a consolidation of the institution? The phrasing simply tells the reader that the practice existed in Romania and that he practiced slavery as well, to some record levels apparently. It links the phrase with what comes before it. The Achim citation mentions in fact that he contributed massively to the transfer of Romanies from Wallachia to Moldavia, ''as slaves'', and that his rule saw the first ever mention of the term "slave". So your claim that it is "not in citation given" is unreasonable and contrived. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
*Regarding the practice of slavery: the capture of 17,000 slaves in one go is not a consolidation of the institution? The phrasing simply tells the reader that the practice existed in Romania and that he practiced slavery as well, to some record levels apparently. It links the phrase with what comes before it. The Achim citation mentions in fact that he contributed massively to the transfer of Romanies from Wallachia to Moldavia, ''as slaves'', and that his rule saw the first ever mention of the term "slave". So your claim that it is "not in citation given" is unreasonable and contrived. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::**Achim writes that the presence of Gypsy slaves in Moldavia was first recorded in 1428, but there is "documentary evidence for a permanent movement movement of Gypsies from Wallachia to Moldavia". Sorry, I cannot decide whether the 17,000 slaves allegedly brought by Stephen from Wallachia to Moldavia consolidated slavery in Wallachia based on Achim's text. What can easily be verified is the fact (namely, that slaves were brought to Wallachia). [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
::**Achim writes that the presence of Gypsy slaves in Moldavia was first recorded in 1428, but there is "documentary evidence for a permanent movement movement of Gypsies from Wallachia to Moldavia". Sorry, I cannot decide whether the 17,000 slaves allegedly brought by Stephen from Wallachia to Moldavia consolidated slavery in Wallachia based on Achim's text. What can easily be verified is the fact (namely, that slaves were brought to Wallachia). [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 18:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::*That makes no sense whatsoever. He brought them ''to Moldavia'' from Wallachia, and consolidated the practice ''in Moldavia''. This is quite plainly stated by Achim. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 18:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 27 July 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Birthdate/Birthplace?
1) There's something strange about Stephen's birthdate: in the body of the article is given as ca. 1437, while in the cameo is given as 1443. They can't be both true.
2) Now, we know that he took part - alongside his cousin Vlad Tepes - at the Battle of Crasna in 1450, where his father, Bogdan defeated an invading Polish army. I doubt that his father would let him fight the Poles at the tender age of 7, and even at 13 (even if this is not unheard of; in those times teenager heirs apparent were sometimes taken along by their fathers when campaigning).
3) We also know that legend, folklore and oral tradition has it that Stephen spent (at least part of) his childhood at Borze?ti, but are there any reliable sources attesting that he was actually born there?
4) Any ideas how to solve these inconsistencies?
- He was born in 1433. As for the article, it is Dahn's resonsibility. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you ask him to fix it? I don't want to do it by myself... Also, can you point to any sources for the birthyear?
- Anittas was making one of his trademark remarks, of which he assumes are clever. I only copyedited the article at some point, and kept doing various edits that I saw as urgent. There is nothing to prevent you from editing the article or any other, so feel free to.
- Oh, and: you will find characters with diacritics in your edit window, as clickable icons (just scroll down in your window after clicking "edit", and you'll find them there). Dahn 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you ask him to fix it? I don't want to do it by myself... Also, can you point to any sources for the birthyear?
Basarab Dynasty
I read Stefan cel Mare, Mircea cel Batran, John Hunyadi, Vlad Tepes and Michael the Brave were all from the Basarab dynasty. I think it would be interesting for people to know that Matthias Corvinus and Stefan cel Mare were relatives. -- criztu
- Stefan cel Mare was from the Musatin family.
- Yes, but apparently Stephen and Vlad were cousins. Also, Stephen's mother, Maria-Oltea, seems to have been of Wallachian origins. See http://old.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=42596 (in Romanian).
Article Name
Shouldn't this article be at Stephen the Great instead of Ştefan cel Mare according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)? See Michael the Brave instead of Mihai Viteazul as well. Olessi 04:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- According to the naming conventions this article could also be at Stephen III of Moldavia or Stefan III of Moldavia (based on List of Moldavian rulers). Olessi 04:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Certainly it should not be where it is. I might prefer Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia. Without the Moldavia qualifier, I don't think most english-speakers would have any idea who he is. john k 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- That would make more sense than simply Stephen the Great. To play devil's advocate, however, Frederick the Great is found at Frederick II of Prussia, not Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. However, I do prefer your suggestion. Olessi 22:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think John Kenney's suggestion is a good one. Another possibility is Stephen the Great of Moldavia. Also, all of the other reasonable possibilities should be either redirects or disambiguations. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Him being an independent ruler (at least for some of the time), I would prefer the title Stephen III of Moldavia, with a lead like this:
Stephen III of Moldavia, also called Stephen the Great (Romanian: Ştefan cel Mare) or Stephen Muşat III (Borzeşti, 1433 – Suceava, 1504-07-02) was a voivod (prince) of Moldova (1457-1504), who won renown in Europe for his long resistance against the Ottoman Empire.
- In any case, the link to Romanian language would be nice, since not all readers will know what language they speak in Moldavia. KissL 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
He was known as Stephen the Great; the pope called him that and the different chronicler called him that. In other ennyclopedies, he is also referred to as Stephen the Great. Example:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/StphnG1rt.asp
Even Hungarians call him that. Now, Americans want to change his well-deserved title. Figures... --Anittas 13:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The title of the article and the name we call that particular person is not the same thing, don't draw hasty conclusions. Nobody wants to change the name throughout the article, or in any other articles that link here. I personally prefer article titles that fit with the rest of the encyclopedia (as is the case with Frederick the Great). Also, Stephen the Great redirects here. (On the net, Stephen I of Hungary is sometimes referred to as Stephen the Great, but that's not a name we use in Hungary; our first king is usually simply called "King St. Stephen". So nothing against the redirect.)
We could say something like this then:
Stephen III of Moldavia, also called Stephen Muşat III (Borzeşti, 1433 – Suceava, 1504-07-02) was a voivod (prince) of Moldova (1457-1504), who won renown in Europe for his long resistance against the Ottoman Empire. He became known as Stephen the Great (Romanian: Ştefan cel Mare).
KissL 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good suggestion, Kissl. Michael the Brave could be improved with the same formula (Michael II of Wallachia etc.). What does Muşat mean? Anittas, I don't understand your quick assumption. We are discussing possible replacements for "Ştefan cel Mare". Louis VIII the Lion is at Louis VIII of France, Peter the Great is at Peter I of Russia, Catherine the Great is at Catherine II of Russia, Louis the Great is at Louis I of Hungary etc. The only leaders that I have found that do not follow this policy are from the Dark Ages and earlier: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Henry the Fowler, Alexander the Great etc. Based on these standards, Stephen the Great should be at Stephen III of Moldavia, while Michael the Brave should be at Michael II of Wallachia. Olessi 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Summary
- Stephen III of Moldavia: Olessi, KissL
- Variations of Stephen the Great of Moldavia: John Kenney, Jmabel, Anittas
- Naming conventions (summarised above by Olessi) suggest to me Stephen III of Moldavia. No conclusion yet. Rd232 talk 14:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I move this article to Stephen III of Moldavia (with listing of Stephen the Great and Ştefan cel Mare in the intro)? Olessi 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can the requested move to Stephen the Great be cancelled? --Scott Davis Talk 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
A few days ago Bogdangiusca had said that he was going to take a look at the topic. I would like to wait until he gives his opinion before any decisions are made. If consensus is reached here after the request is removed from the Requested Moves page, I can just post it again, right? Olessi 14:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll move it into the "clarification" section near the bottom of the page - post clarification there when you have it (and let me know on my talk) and I'll sort it, if no-one gets there before me. Rob Church Talk 20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
two weeks no objections to the name "Stephen III of Moldavia" So I've moved it. However I have edited the articles which had names like "Stefan the Great" "Stephen the Great" to etc rather than change the redirects. So only "Stephen the Great", "Stefan cel Mare" as well as the previous page name "Ştefan cel Mare" redirect here. So if anyone objects strongly and wants to reverse the move, or move it to another page name, they only have to chage a maximum of three redirect. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the article should be left at Stefan cel Mare as in the romanian name making it far more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.61.182 (talk • contribs)
Bummer...I felt all warm and fuzzy inside when this article used the Romanian name. I suppose, however, that naming conventions need to be upheld... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themill (talk • contribs)
Battleflag
link here: http://media.ici.ro/history/brod_t.htm
Citations/footnotes
This article is missing citations and footnotes. To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines and to conform to policies regarding neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability, please provide appropriate inline citations and/or footnotes. When this has been significantly complished, the {{citations missing}} should be removed from the article. For more information about footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use. --Alcohol120 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 1. The (Russian?) item «Uliantski, Mamerualyi» is incomplete and cannot be verified. The same mistake appears in other wiki-versions of this article.--Sever Juan (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
One of the first to gain a decisive victory
I changed "the first to inflict a decisive victory over the Ottomans" to "one of the first to gain a decisive victory over the Ottomans," because that's a better way of putting it and because Hunyadi won a decisive battle at Belgrade almost 20 years before Stephen. Stephen's victory halted Mehmed's expansion into Europe from the Balkans, but it was Hunyadi's victory that allowed the Balkans, and in fact all of Europe, any strategic defense at all. That is not to say that Stephen's victory was not important. Tactically it was the worst defeat Mehmed ever suffered, but it strategically it was not as decisive as the siege of Belgrade.Shield2 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Siege of Belgrade was a victory, but not a decisive one. It was an important one, but I can't say how important it really was compared to Vaslui. Both positions threatened the Catholic border. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Broken short citations
@Borsoka: There are plenty of Nowakowska 2004 in short citations, but that work is not listed in the full bibliography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen III of Moldavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SpartaN (talk · contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is definitely broad and well-referenced. Mostly just copy editing to improve prose. While 90% of the article reads just fine, those few sentences with slight prose issues are all I'd say needs work on. Note also that I don't know anything about the history of Moldavia, and only checked to make sure the information in this article is consistent with that of our other articles on the subject: I saw no factual errors. A couple prose issues I fixed myself. Hope I'm not being too picky.
- "With the assistance of Vlad, Stephen broke into Moldavia at the head of an army of 6,000 strong in the spring of 1457."
to: With the assistance of Vlad, Stephen broke into Moldavia at the head of an army 6,000 strong in the spring of 1457.
- "Peter Aaron subsequently left Poland for Hungary and settled in Székely Land in Transylvania."
to: Peter Aaron subsequently left Poland for Hungary and settled in Székely Land, Transylvania.
- "A year later, Stephen confirmed the privileges of the merchants of Lvov..."
What are the privileges he confirmed? The right to conduct business?
- "Stephen broke into Székely Land more than once in 1461."
to: Stephen breached Székely Land multiple times in 1461. (broke into sounds more like a burglary in my opinion)
- "During the siege, Stephen was seriously wounded on his left calf, a wound that did not heal to the end of his life."
to: Stephen was seriously wounded during the siege, suffering an injury on his left calf that would never heal his entire life.
- it only needs to be mentioned that chilia is now Kiliya in Ukraine once.
- "However, neither the Pope nor other European powers sent material support to Moldavia."
to: However, neither the Pope, or any other European power, sent material support to Moldavia.
- "Stephen adopted the scorched earth policy, but he could not avoid joining a pitched battle."
to: Stephen adopted a scorched earth policy, but could not avoid a pitched battle.
- "Stephen returned to Moldavia, but left Moldavian troops behind to protect Vlad."
to: Stephen returned to Moldava, leaving Moldavian troops behind for Vlad's protection.
- "To strengthen his international position, Stephen signed a new treaty with Poland on 22 January 1479, promising Casimir IV to personally swear fealty to him in Colomeea (now Kolomyia in Ukraine) on the day that the king specified six months ahead."
to: To strengthen his international position, Stephen signed a new treaty with Poland on 22 January 1479, promising to personally swear fealty to Casimir IV in Colomeea (now Kolomyia, Ukraine) on that day specified by the king six months later.
- " He promised to again pay a yearly tribute in May 1480.[76] Taking advantage of the peace, Stephen made preparations to a new confrontation with the Ottoman Empire."
to: He promised to renew the annual tribute in May 1480 that he had stopped paying in 1473. Taking advantage of the peace, Stephen made preparations for a new confrontation with the Ottoman Empire.
- "Matthias Corvinus signed a truce for five years with Bayezid II in October 1483."
to: Matthias Corvinus signed a five-year truce with Bayezid II in October 1483. ("..signed a truce for five years.." sounds like he was signing it for five years)
- "The truce covered Moldavia, with the exception of the Moldavian ports."
to:The truce applied to all Moldavia, with the exception of the Moldavian ports.
- There's a couple citation needed tags that you should work on, but not enough to fail the article. Those sentences may very well be covered by citations at the end of the paragraphs anyway.
After these changes I'll pass the article. I recommend that after fixing the citation needed tags that you take the article to A-class. A lot of work went into the article and I never realized Moldavia defeated the Ottomans so many times. I always thought it was Poland and Venice who were the main defenders of "Christendom" after the Byzantines fell. SpartaN (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- SpartaN, thank you for your comprehensive review. I highly appreciate your hard work. I changed the text of the article mostly in accordance with your above proposals. Please let me know if any further action is needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Borsoka Looks good. Saw one instance of double negative which I just fixed myself. Will pass now.
- SpartaN, thank you for your comprehensive review. I highly appreciate your hard work. I changed the text of the article mostly in accordance with your above proposals. Please let me know if any further action is needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Icon
I think I remember bringing up this issue here or elsewhere a long time ago: there is absolutely no way the icon of a man canonized in 1992 can be PD. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
@Dahn:, thank you for your edits which significantly improved the article. I placed some template messages in the text, because I am not sure that the sentences concerned can actually verified. I would appreciate if you could look at them. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Borsoka, they are all in the citation given, those that aren't simply matter of fact. For instance, Boia verifies not just the quote from Delavrancea, but its attribution by the populace to Stephen himself, and its popularity: "The words are those of the great orator Delavrancea and in no way those of the old ruler, but what does it matter? The image of Stephen the Great that is imprinted in public consciousness owes much more to this play than to any document of the time or scholarly monograph." My "locally" means "in Romania" (and possibly Moldova), and is used for "not throughout the world". Dahn (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick answer. Sorry, I think, the quote from Boia's work does not support the text in the article. It does not say that the words are "often attributed" to historical Stephen the Great. If my understanding is correct, the expression "locally" could be exactly determined to avoid misunderstanding. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Popular account": must I really summarize the loaf of text in Rezachievici where he notes that the vast majority of historians have taken up the claim in Ureche word for word (making his account "popular" in that sense), but that they did so without wondering why Stephen and only Stephen was elected in that entire period, even though he had already been associate ruler? "It is generally believed" carried three citations, including from the author who rejects the theory that he was elected. Meaning that it is, for all practical purposes, an undisputed fact; the election is not. Dahn (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- "In 1485, Stephen became a participant in the Polish–Ottoman War." This is simply one way to point to the reader that by then the two countries were at war. Stephen signed an alliance with one of them and was invaded by the other. Your request for a citation is simply unreasonable. Dahn (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen became a "participant" in the Polish-Ottoman War because he signed an alliance with Poland, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? Please note that the cited reliable sources do not write of an alliance. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- You really need a citation for the fact that literature in Stephen's day was entirely Slavonic? All the manuscripts you yourself mentioned in the text are not in Romanian, do look it up. Dahn (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- If my understanding is correct, you concluded that Stephen contributed to the development of Old Church Slavonic literature, because the chronicles were written in that language, but no reliable sources say this explicitly. Am I wrong? There are billions who write texts in English, but I am not convinced that all works contribute to the development of English literature. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is absurd. I simply spell out the language in which all the works were written. And yes, several sources mention that fact, including the added source which states that he influenced literature even outside Romania. But the text you take issue with never said that he indfuenced literature in Slavonic everywhere -- the link clearly refers to Church Slavonic literature in Romania. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the practice of slavery: the capture of 17,000 slaves in one go is not a consolidation of the institution? The phrasing simply tells the reader that the practice existed in Romania and that he practiced slavery as well, to some record levels apparently. It links the phrase with what comes before it. The Achim citation mentions in fact that he contributed massively to the transfer of Romanies from Wallachia to Moldavia, as slaves, and that his rule saw the first ever mention of the term "slave". So your claim that it is "not in citation given" is unreasonable and contrived. Dahn (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Achim writes that the presence of Gypsy slaves in Moldavia was first recorded in 1428, but there is "documentary evidence for a permanent movement movement of Gypsies from Wallachia to Moldavia". Sorry, I cannot decide whether the 17,000 slaves allegedly brought by Stephen from Wallachia to Moldavia consolidated slavery in Wallachia based on Achim's text. What can easily be verified is the fact (namely, that slaves were brought to Wallachia). Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)