Talk:Regulamentul Organic/Archive 1

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 [currently embarassing] "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: 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)
 * 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.
 * 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: [ˈsuzəɹɪnti] or [ˈsuzəˌɹeɪnti]) 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)
 * First of all, all that text was under-referenced because, when, I edited the text, I chose not to add notes to the introductory part (I though it was not needed). I have been called to so and in some cases relied on what Djuvara alludes to and other authors make perfectly clear (most of all, because I did not have the other books around any more). The rest of the material was compiled from sources - if I'm under scrutiny, I urge the users to at least use the same edition.
 * On page 76, there is mention of all wars which involved the Russians on Romanian soil. In the immediately following sentence, you will find ample mention of the most violent of such cases.
 * Dealt with.
 * The concessions issue: on p.57, in reference to the Ottomans not intervening against the local custom in regard to princes, despite officially treating them like governors; p.92-93, Phanariotes being used as an alternative to transforming the country into pashaluks (also a reference to them as "buffer states", although, ambiguously enough, Djuvara also argues that the alternative was pashaluks); p.123, references to the immense power allowed by the Ottomans to the inner circle of boyar families. I suppose I could turn it into "political concessions", which was my intended meaning, and which is entirely backed by the source. Dahn 02:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's a confusing context. I have looked for concession being made by the Porte as the conflict with Russia aggravated. The concessions you mention existed before the treaty of K-K (as the paragraph contextualizes; and the claim actually starts with "at the same time"). I think a much fair assessment is to describe generally the relation of the Principates with the Porte as enjoying such concessions, and not somehow conditioned by the wars (or treaties) with Russia.
 * Also, by Russian interventions it seems you actually mean the Russo-Turkish wars. To my taste the term is vague, but if you believe the readers understand it's about these wars, then I'm fine with it. Daizus 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On fragility and Eastern Orthodoxy I'll look again tomorrow. Thank you for your prompt clarifications. Daizus 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Back on "the fragility of Ottoman rule in face of competition by an Eastern Orthodox empire with claim to a Byzantine heritage".
 * The reference you quote at p. 285 I have it at p. 309-310 (4th ed., 2006) and it says (in a rushy translation and skipping exemplyfing details):
 * During the war of 1768-1774, the Moldavian boyars, in their majority, embraced the cause of Holy Russia, crusading against the infidels and freeing the Christians from their long slavery. Many Russian monks, arriving in the Principalities, in Transylvania and the whole Balkan peninsula, prepared for a long time this event, being efficient propagandists of this popular movement. Thousands of volunteers from Moldavia and Wallachia were recruited in Russian army: at the end of the war they were 12,000. Most of them were peasants, but they were all from all social positions.
 * However, as the real plans of Tsars revealed, the great boyars started to be suspicious. On the other hand, the behaviour of Russian troops during the 1787-1791 war shadowed the image of Russia in the popular view. That's why many volunteers started to support other factions in the early 19th century: Austria or France. Eventually, the boyars started to believe a weakened Ottoman empire, but allied with France or England, is a lesser enemy than the Russian Tsardom.
 * And then follows the testimony of de Ligne about the 1787-1791 war where the Principates are suspected by both Russians and Ottomans and that the common wish in Principalities is to see them both gone. Daizus 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From this brief:
 * I don't see the fragility of Ottoman rule. Generally, it's an outstretch to claim from a popular movement/uprising/collaboration (about which we do not have any estimates on how much of the population really affected!!!!) under the foreign influence is an imminent danger, a real threat to the local hegemony. How "fragile" was the Ottoman rule?
 * the real unfolding of these events starts relatively late (1768) and Djuvara doesn't relate it at all with the installment of Phanariotes. We can suspect the "Russian monks preparing for a long time" could be a also cause, however Djuvara doesn't say that neither, nor we have any details on when such an influence started and how much it affected the Principates or how was perceived, politically, at that time, i.e. if it was as a threat. We can correlate the execution of Brancoveanu (1714), Cantemir's alliance (1710-11) with de Ligne's testimony and say the Ottomans had a long track of suspecting the Principalities in relation with Russians. But this is essentially reductible to those rebellious alliances you have mentioned (real or just suspected).
 * The reference on "international situation caused by the aggresivity and the success of the Christian states" (in my edition at p. 100) doesn't particularily support neither of these claims a) that Phanariote rule was tightened because of it (even though it could have, but again we don't have Djuvara mentioning it) b) that this "international situation" is reductible for Ottoman interests in Principalities to a "competition by an Eastern Orthodox empire with claim to a Byzantine heritage" (also let's note here that Christianity is not equal with Orthodoxy/Byzantine heritage). Moreover, that paragraph links this situation with the options the Principalities had as "buffer-states": between Phanariotes and pashaluks. Perhaps one thing which could be inferred from this reference is that those concessions you have previously mentioned from Ottomans, were fueled by this "international situation" which is the opposite of the "tightened control" as it is currently stated in the article.
 * Please take a look at these comments and tell me what do you think. Daizus 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Djuvara has his own views about how successful the rebellions where: if you would look at other parts of the text, he talks about "the great majority of Moldavian boyars" having "embraced the cause of Holy Russia", about "popular movements of sympathy towards 'pravoslavnik Russia'" (pravoslavnik also makes me think it is not a stretch to refer to Byzantine heritage and claim to it - the only Orthodox empire, which Djuvara mentions as a reference point for Romanians), "thousands of volunteers" etc.
 * On p.92-93, my edition, Djuvara correlates the start of Phanariote rules with the successes of Austria and Russia. You are right in indicating that the two parts of the text may need to be separated when basing the text on Djuvara: I will come up with such a version, and hopefully we will move on. Dahn 12:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On your recent changes - they are wonderful. They look now to me as a correct reflection of Djuvara's text.
 * On what we have discussed here I just want to add I haven't contested the ideological Byzantine heritage of the Russian Tsardom (I agree with you "pravoslavnik" makes such a suggestion), but the fragility of Ottoman rule (now much fairly expressed as contestation) and the correlation between this Russian influence and the start of the Phanariotes. Again, I must say I appreciate the consensus we have reached and hopefully general improvement of that text. Daizus 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover of the 1832 edition


I found somewhere on the internet a scan of the cover of the 1832 printed edition of the Regulament and I cleaned it up in photoshop (I think it looks quite good considering that the original looked like this). I'm not sure where to include it in the article, so I'll leave it here for now. bogdan (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, B! I remember I bumped into that photo once, but I thought that editing it was to prove an impossible task. You proved me wrong. Into the article it goes. Dahn (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Globalize template added
The article deserves the FA by those who have contributed to it so far, but the unusual terminology came up elsewhere also, as indicated in the new 'Later additions and coverage noted' section. The multi-language recognition of the term indicates broader coverage among various empires of the time, and later, as the Ottomans faded from the scene and Tsarist Russia evaporated. The links used provide some context for understanding the term's broader usage. Maybe a new article or title could minimize editorial changes to the existing FA, but this is generally the limit of my involvement. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regulamentul Organic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020093840/http://crvp.org/book/Series04/IVA-22/chapter_iv.htm to http://www.crvp.org/book/Series04/IVA-22/chapter_iv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)