This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Constantin Brâncoveanu avea o fire atît de blîndă încît nu credea niciodată că ar putea fi trădat. Am băgat de seamă cu cea mai mare uimire că la curtea lui nu se ştia ce înseamnă să se păstreze o taină. Dacă veneau curieri de la Constantinopol, mai înainte ca aceştia să descalece pentru a aduce domnului scrisorile, se ştiau prin dughene ştirile cele mai tainice; astfel că mulţi îşi îngăduiau să le scrie prietenilor şi corespondenţilor lor în ţări străine. Îmi amintesc că am citit eu însumi (la Tîrgovişte, unde se afla atunci domnul) într-o gazetă din 1713, aceste cuvinte, întocmai: «Scriu unii din Ţara Românească că la Constantinopol etc., etc.» Par să fie lucruri de puţină însemnătate, dar urmările lor, tragice; am arătat ce mare caz făceau turcii, cărora li s-a trimis un exemplar din acea gazetă de către duşmanii lui Brâncoveanu.Greier 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevancy of this highly subjective claim of Chiaro's? All I can read into it is that Brâncoveanu was an idiot. Dahn 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There`s no relevancy, because it wasn`t my intention in the first place as for this quote to be used in the article. I know it`s a personal view of Chiaro, but I found this part interesting, and expected some feedback on it, irrespective of whose might be, yours or of other persons. Anyway, I don`t think Chiaro neither saw, or tried to present Brancoveanu as an idiot, rather than a peculiar person. Greier 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. The "idiot" part was, of course, my conclusion (I guess it constitutes my feedback). Dahn 16:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
But, please let me search on this topic this weekend (about Brâncoveni Monastery), maybe I could expand it a bit, so that it could have a distinct meaning/identity. In that case (expanded article) I think that Brâncoveni Monastery deservse to be let alone and included in category of Brâncovenesc style edifices. Cornel Ilie – my talk 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine, I normally edit fortnightly on these types of articles. I see what happening in a fortnight or so. Blackashhave a chat 12:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The long quote in the "Quotes" section is not intergrated into the article. It is not by Brâncoveanu, but is about him. If the information is important, then it should be integrated. Please see the advice at Wikipedia:Quotes: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. --Bejnar (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)