Talk:Moldavia

What's up with the use of Molvadia instead of Moldova. When the name is Moldova in the actual land, the neighboring Romania, and else where, why do you plain and simple weird people insist on using Molvadia ? London is London for example not, Londra as in romanian, or Lourdes as in french. So why would you butcher a name in an encyclopedia ? Like someone else said quote It is not used either by the Republic of Moldova or by Romania to describe the region of Moldova. It's not even very commonly used in English, I'm pretty sure that any English language article would use the Romanian spelling.

Sign your posts before you insult people, you plain and simple weird person. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Coats of arms are approved by the rulers and deputies of the country or region of any country. Historical region Moldova is not a country. On the territory of the region there were various historical states (the Moldavian principality, the Romanian kingdom, the Russian Empire, the Moldavian Democratic Republic) and now there are three countries on its territory. Which country has the right to approve the coat of arms and the flag of the historical region? Can it be more correct to talk about the coat of arms and flag: the Moldavian principality, the Romanian kingdom, the Russian Empire (Bessarabian province), the Moldavian Democratic Republic, Romania, the Republic of Moldova? Then the flag and coat of arms should be removed from the article about the historical region. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about the historical region but about the principality. I had proposed like two years ago this article for being split into a principality article and a historical region article but it was rejected. Super Ψ Dro 17:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The split would be absolutely pointless and confusing. The region is the former country, with all the subregions neatly covered by their respective articles. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

...is a historical region and former principality in Central and Eastern Europe. I do not understand the problem of this user with a name written in Cyrillic letters. I'm not even trying. I think you both know why...--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"This article is not about the historical region but about the principality" - really? Then why isn't it titled "Moldavian Principality" or "Principality of Moldavia"? This creates a lot of confusion! Pls. also see the discussion I've started here below. Compare with Transylvania vs Principality of Transylvania (the latter is even split in two, Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) and Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867), due to different status).

The historical region is quite distinct from the principality, in an encyclopedic sense, and that's what matters here. Arminden (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The historical region has a history that starts in prehistory and continues until today.

The principality's history starts with the Hungarian mark and ends in 1859.

The first meaning deserves attention and detailed treatment, over-the-top "political correctness" should not stand in the way of logic and reality.

Pocuttia was at some point part of the latter, but can't really be counted as part of the former and so forth. Arminden (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitions are crucial in reference works such as this.

We have to offer careful and precise definitions for the entire set of related terms and topics, and then deal with them in an interconnected fashion:

• the historical region of Moldavia
• the Principality of Moldavia (early mark to 1859)
• Western M., part of Romania
• Russian, Soviet, indep. Eastern M.
• Moldavians, including Moldovans, whatever that's supposed to be (live also in territories outside the historical region, see Odessa region, Transnistria, etc.)
• Moldavian dialect of the Romanian language.

This is one closely interconnected family of topics, and what holds them together is the historical region, so this article. Fail to work out properly this article here, and it all collapses into disjoined parts - to the illiterate joy of you-know-who. Arminden (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a plea for nationalist or irredentist narratives; far from it. Moldavians are not "eternal" or "eternally connected to their fatherland", from times immemorial and forever more. There is the history of a territory, and the history of a population with a constantly evolving ethnic outlook, with ethnic groups interacting, merging in, splitting out, changing character and allegiance. But with a definable body and history.

Mixing up the principality with the historical region is as far from reaching this very much required level, as Cintarea Romaniei was from folklore and art, or Soviet historiography was from any old kind of truth. Arminden (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)