Talk:Ivan Pidkova

Article name

Yes, he is a character in a book by a Romanian author. But is this enough reason to keep a Ukrainian hero under a foreign name. Is the current name of the article better established in English. Otherwise, why should not we move it to Ivan Pidkova. --Irpen 03:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. I find it dubious that his name is Romanian, as pidkova is the East Slavic word for horseshoe. --Ghirlandajo 12:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Potcoava is romanian for horseshoe, and is derived from pidovka, and Ioan Potcoava is the romanian equivalent. The article, I think, started because he was on the list of Moldavian voivodes, a list that is curently being completed. I agree to renaming the article because we use the same policy with romanian names, but you should wait also for Dahn's opinion - the expert on Moldavian history. --Orioane 12:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK then. I will move the article shortly. --Irpen 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please ask Dahn also, beacuse he is i charge of these articles. Thank you. --Mihai -^talk 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Talk page for Hetmans, I had added this:

"Ivan Pidkova was a Moldavian Prince under the name "Ioan Potcoavă". Please, don't change his name on that page: most sources mention him as such, and note that he claimed to be a voivode's brother (and thus Moldavian/Romanian in name). I cited the Ukrainian variant, and linked the article to here. Could you please add the uk: category on the bottom of the page? I can't spell his name in Cyrilic. Thanks. "

My points were:

• He claimed to have been Ioan Vodă's brother. Ioan (on which there is no article yet) did not ever present himself as Ukrainian. In fact, he was known as "Armeanul" ("the Armenian"). Does that mean that we have to change both of their names to Armenian?
• Ioan is known for his claim to the throne in Moldavia, most of that being reflected in the chronicles of the time. Most written documents about him as are in Romanian. Sure, most written documents about Montezuma are in Spanish, but Montezuma did not rule Spain! Also, the primary language of reference in documents other than Romanian would've been Church Slavonic, not Ukrainian.

However, if you still feel that his main name should be Pidkova, then I'll accept it (I admit there are no popular ballads about him, and no monuments raised in his honour over on this side).Dahn 15:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you made some good points and I am in no rush to move it. I will check around myself and let's also see what others would say. --Irpen 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I've found a compromise: article name - Ivan Pidkova; first name mentined - Ioan Potcoavă.Dahn 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should check what name is more used in historical literature written in the English L and then decide on the article's name. I would refrain from moving the article until we figure this out. OTOH, the article content can be edited of course. --Irpen 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gbooks hits: "Ivan Pidkova" (101), "Ioan Potcoavă" (65), "Ioan Creţul" (12).--Zoupan 12:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Bathory's statement

It would be nice to have a reference to the source concerning this statement.

In any case there should be a comment added that in fact Ruthenioans rather than Muscovites were the ethnic base of the Zaporizzia Cossacks.--AndriyK 09:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to google for at least 5 minutes before throwing tags. Within 3 minutes I found the citation is quoted from

• I. Nistor, ,,Basarabia", 10/1990, p.159.

Ion Nistor, was a chief ideologue of Greater Romanian nationalism in the early 20th century and in the interbellum and a fierce Ukrainophobe. You can read more on him in the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine as well as here in Chernivtsi University and Rumanization articles. The info in the statement is indeed dubious but the quote itself is taken from a historian's work. Please stop abusing tags. Nistor, while biased in interpretations, is an academic sholar and can be reasonably trusted on facts themselves. This is a too easy and lazy approach. At least care to look for the info before disrupting the articles and the other people's work with your tags. --Irpen 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Horseshoe

His nickname is said to come from the fact that he used to break the horseshoes of his stallions when horseback riding.

Do we have any reference for that? Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu said that he was named "because he could break in his hand a horseshoe" ("fiindcă frângea între degete potcoava de cal"). bogdan 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His ethnicity

I believe that the ethnicity of all people should be presented in their articles. I tried to present his ethnicity, but did a poor job in integrating it in the text and Dahn -- as usuall, without discussing it --,reverted me. Therefore, I will allow Dahn to include that information in the article. And yes, it must be included and it should be in the top section of the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read my edit summary, Anittas? Because I have no will to answer to pointless diatribes. Dahn 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, but I don't think I understood it. Something about -an? I'm not sure what you're referring to. And it is not superflous because not everyone can assume that he was Moldavian. Also, we should leave nothing to assumption. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Click Moldavian (jeez, don't you know this by now?). For the rest, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), and tell me where it says something about ethnicity. I'm also sure that you will note that the issue of ethnicity and its implications is especially controversial for that age and for this case (more so when this article lists him as a Romanian further down in the text). There is also a rule about no ethnicity in leads. Additionally, the man implicitly claimed he was half Armenian. Even more so, linking to the same word in the same screen goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Need I continue? Dahn 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a controversary, then that controversary should be included. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You will read my full reply sometime in the future, won't you? Dahn 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: what you are doing to the redirect page for Moldavian is in breach of WP:POINT. Dahn 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what else is new? Dahn 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pidkov??

How did Ivan Pidkova end up as Ivan Pidkov? Вечный подмастерье (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

fixed.--Aristophile (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)