Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 1 March 2007

	Regulamentul Organic is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted

Russia FA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template

This has a template that says it is part of the series on the history of Romania, but it is not mentioned in the template. Should it be? - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, actually. I feel it shouuld, but I've left the decision to other contributors - in any case, I see it as an "and Regulamentul Organic" after the "National awakening" entry (kinda like what they did with Reign of Terror on the template on French Revolution). Dahn 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the political basis for the Galactic Empire in the years to come. ... Maybe the contributors could correct this. For some reason I seem to be banned and liable for some damages ... ridiculous.

Banned from wikipedia?

This was a case of vandalism, right? Just to be sure :o Asgrrr 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Regarding this sentence:

The official onset of a common Russian protectorate lasting until 1854, and itself officially in place until 1858, the document signified a partial confirmation of traditional government (including rule by the hospodars).

This is confusing. Does it mean that the document marked the beginning of the protectorate, and was in force from 1854 until 1858? If so, why not just say that? (And how do we get from 1834 in the previous sentence to 1854 in this one?) The last clause (traditional government) seems to be a separate point entirely; if seems more closely related to the sentence that follows it. I would propose revised language but I am unclear on what was meant. And given the length of this impressive article, a longer introduction would be in order. Kablammo 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, and I hope my corrections have clarified the issue. I wanted to expand the lead a bit myself, but was bound to bump into major redlinks that I did not want to deal with at the time. Dahn 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Probably it will be long task to properly source the article. I've started with the Background and I found these claims in need to be sourced:

• The two countries, placed under Ottoman Empire suzerainty since the 1400s (anyway shouldn't be here "The two principalities" or "Wallachia and Moldavia" even better?). The two countries is quite confusing. The word "country" is nowhere to be found before this occurence.
• been subject to frequent Russian interventions as early as the Russo-Turkish War (1710–1711)
• when (i.e. 1710-1711) a Russian army penetrated Moldavia and Emperor Peter the Great established links with the Wallachians
• the fragility of Ottoman rule in face of competition by an Eastern Orthodox empire with claim to a Byzantine heritage
• The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, signed in 1774 between the Ottomans and Russians, gave Russia the right to intervene on behalf of Eastern Orthodox Ottoman subjects in general, a right which it used to sanction Ottoman interventions in the Principalities in particular.

As I'm at the first two paragraphs, I'm a bit puzzled by the reference on Djuvara for "At the same time, the Porte made several concessions to the rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia, as a means to ensure the preservation of its rule" because a) I couldn't find in the first 3 chapters of the book (I have a 2006 edition, so it may happen the pages to be not quite the same) "Un pic de istorie", "Domnul", "Boierii" such inference. While I also have found claims suggesting an opposite image, of worsening. E.g. at pages 80-81 I find that Wallachia paid in 1812-1817 double the quantity of cereals (wheat) than it paid in 1755, in spite of the commitments of the Porte signed at the treaties from 1774 (K-K), 1792 (Iasi) and 1812 (Bucuresti). Or at page 82: everything worsened during the wars (and all conflicts between 1716 and 1829 are listed). Maybe I have missed something, please enlighten. Daizus 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me and I believe you're making original research. If you equate things like "platesc tribut de aproape 4 secole" cu "under Ottoman suzerainty since 1400s" this is OR. Daizus 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find most of your references from Djuvara utterly unconvincing. Please provide here the quotes in support for these claims because I have the same material in front of me. Maybe we're lost in translation, somewhere. Daizus 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suzerainty: "Suzerainty (pronounced: or ) is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs." Dahn 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and tribute is a payment. Not "limited domestic autonomy" not "being controlled in foreign affairs". And Djuvara doesn't make any claim about when the situation of suzerainty started. It makes a vague claim of almost 4 centuries behind. Which even doesn't place that with certainty in 1400s.

Moreover, your "links" are in fact suspicions of the Ottomans that Brancoveanu would have links with the Russians. Also I don't find any "frequent interventions" of the Russians in Djuvara's text. You're extrapolating from the text, and that is OR. Daizus 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be better to actually find sources for the claims and improve the article? I've noticed as a feature article with some large portions unsourced. That's all I wanted from it, to be properly sourced. Not to be rushily sourced, outstretching and extrapolating. Daizus 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear:

I couldn't find Djuvara speaking of "frequent Russian interventions" - maybe you can clarify.

I couldn't find Djuvara speaking of links between Russians and Wallachians prior to Phanariote rule.

I couldn't find Djuvara speaking of that fragility of the Ottomans opposing the Eastern Orthodoxy.

Can you clarify those references you have used? Daizus 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on that concession issue I have mentioned when I started this section - I'm still puzzled. Daizus 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is much better. To diminish the impact on visitors, I've left just a "check" tag for the change in the Porte's attitude to those two principalities. Daizus 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• FA-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance FA-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles