Talk:Ion Heliade Rădulescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ion Heliade Rădulescu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know

Sorting[edit]

This article needs to be sorted under Radulescu. The Library of Congress Card Catalog, for example, has him listed under the following entries:[1]

  • Rădulescu, Ion Heliade, 1802-1872

It does have an entry under "Heliade Rădulescu, I. (Ion), 1802-1872":

  • See: Heliade Rădulescu, Ion, 1802-1872

These are probably a different Ion Rădulescu, a 20th century geographer

  • Rădulescu, I. [from old catalog]
  • Rădulescu, Ion
  • Rădulescu, Ion, Dr.
  • Radulescu, Ion Horia.

My 1979 Encyclopædia Britannica has him listed under Rădulescu, Eliade—so why are Eliade Rădulescu, Eliade Radulescu, Heliade Rădulescu, and Heliade Radulescu, all redlinks? And Ion Radulescu and Ion Rădulescu as well?

There is no "Heliade" in the names given of either his father or mother. Clearly he should be under Radulescu for our purposes, as the name under which most anybody reading an English-language encyclopedia will look for him. Gene Nygaard 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I misread the LOC "See" entry. It is indeed a redirect to a version with the Heliade first.
  • Heliade Rădulescu, Ion, 1802-1872

and that listing has more entries than the one under Rădulescu, Ion Heliade, 1802-1872.

Nonetheless, it shouldn't be under that without an explanation in the article of how that name came about.
And the best solution would probably be to index both the article and one of its redirects, one under "H" and one under "R". But to do that, of course, the redirects need first to be created. Gene Nygaard 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, to clear how I came about that: the Romanian Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1978 lists him under H. I also remember an essay by Tudor Arghezi in which he was referred to as just "Eliade" (the "h" got lost, but that is one of the many variations).
Yes, a note and redirects need to be created. I generally deal with all these issues once I can add more to the article (do it all in one go) - it would be disproportionate to explain his choice of name in an article that has two lines on his entire career. But I'll see about that. Dahn 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: I will not link Ion Radulescu and Ion Rădulescu here: they both call for disambig, and the man is simply not known under any of those variants. Dahn 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FA[edit]

Just tell me when you finish editing the article, so I will propose it for FA. Best, Eurocopter tigre 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my recent experience with the FAC process has led me to believe that articles could do with peer-review before FAC. But, if you think it is up to standards, I could not possibly oppose. From my part, significant editing is complete. And, of course, thank you. Dahn 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the nomination. But let me first go one more time though the article, see if I can fine-tune a few things, here and there. As you say, better to work out all the possible kinks before the FAC process starts in earnest. To start with, a quick stylistic question: if a term is linked in the lead (e.g., Obor, Gheorghe Lazăr), does it need to be linked again in the body of the article? I haven't seen it done before, but maybe in a full-feature article like this one it's the thing to do? Turgidson 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and sure, go ahead (though, one could note, Eurocopter has already nominated it). The general guideline about links and their frequency is, from memory, "the same words can/should be linked one screen away from one another". This, of course, depends on individual settings - I do not dislike the rule (though I had trouble applying it at first); what I do generally is to link a second time after what my settings show to be a screen, unless the text is too dense (in that case, I try and stick with some other momentary inspiration). Afaik, there is no explicit guideline about lead links vs body of text links - I do see a purpose in linking words present in the lead a second (third etc.) time, depending on the length of text, thinking that it could help the reader who is looking at a particular section of text. I'm not married to the concept, though my experience with random editors shows that de-linking can easily lead to re-linking, and that the re-linking may be done poorly (my other FA currently breaks with the MoS - a user de-linked single years, which was called for, but, after the FAC, another user re-linked them). Dahn 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I now see that the nomination is already in place, so I better hurry. I got your point about "at most one link per page" -- make sense, that's what I more-or less guessed from the context, though I had not seen it discussed previously. Good to know as a rule of thumb, especially for longer articles. Another quick question: When was the Heliade Rădulescu Award established by the Romanian Academy? From the context, it appears that this was done shortly before 1880, but it may be worth making the year explicit, if the info can be found in the reference. While at it, how many of these prizes have been conferred? If a significant number have been awarded, it may be worth starting a separate page for the award, and listing it also with other such awards and prizes. After all, judging from the initial sum of 5,000 gold leis Hasdeu got (how much is this worth in today's currency?), this was a pretty serious award! Turgidson 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
O, believe me, I have searched far and wide for other details about the prize, but not even a relevant one was available (the source I used simply mentions it in passing). If I were to take after the doc available from here, it is no longer being awarded (on the other hand, the doc seems to confirm that many prizes are not awarded regularly, so that may serve as a clue for the obliqueness of its mentions). About the sum, I couldn't possibly tell you what it is worth - I remeber Jmabel telling me that it is virtually impossible to estimate 19th centuy currency in post-Oil Crisis money. On the other hand, if such info is made available, I think that it best belongs on Romanian leu, unless we happen to find a source telling us "that many [gold] lei in 1880 was that many dollars" (since gluing an own estimate to the info from the source on Hasdeu would border on OR). Dahn 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I will find out until wednesday how much 5.000 lei worth in today's currency. --Eurocopter tigre 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you also happen to know if, individually, gold lei had higher value than ordinary ones? (I mean, was there an exchange rate between gold lei and regular ones?) Dahn 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the golden lei worth more than regular lei. However, I'm not sure how big is the diference. I will also find out this until wednesday. --Eurocopter tigre 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but, at least in theory, this also implies that the rate between gold and regular also fluctuated beyond official values (and, also in theory, that rate may also have been recorded). Dahn 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
According to this source, the Leu was very stable between 1880 and 1916. In fact, "the Leu was one of the most powerful currencies on the european continent. Like the French Frank and the Swiss Frank, the Romanian Leu had the following exchange rates: 1 US$ = 5,18 Lei; 1 DEM = 1,24 Lei; 1 GB Pound = 25,25 Lei". Thus, if my arithmetic is correct, the Heliade Rădulescu Award that Hasdeu received in 1880 was close to US $1,000 (or 200 GB Pounds). I think that was quite a sum of money in those days. Turgidson 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to the introduction of that estimate. Dahn 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To give you a rough idea how much a US dollar was worth at the time, consider this: Alaska (a territory 1,600,000 km² in size) was purchased in 1867 for $7,200,000 -- this is about 1.9¢ per acre! Incidentally, the purchase was arranged in part by George Pomutz, the American Consul general in Saint Petersburg -- an ethnic Romanian who, before fighting in the US Civil War as a General on the Union side, had partcipated in the 1848 Revolution, in Hungary. Funny how history goes, eh? Turgidson 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To add to the funny, consider how Russia compensated for such losses by taking over the Budjak, for about 0¢ per acre. :)Dahn 19:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To destroy another anti-russian myth: Russia actually wanted to give a larger Dobruja + 200,000,000 francs for budjak, but, since bratianu refused, they decided it was better to impose just the territorial exchange through a decision of the great powers. (and consider that according to the san stefano treaty russia payed 1,100,000 rubles for northern and central dobruja, which in turn were exchanged for budjak)Anonimu 07:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm no such thing as an "anti-[R]ussian", if that is what you were implying. The question of what Russia wanted to give Romania out what was not hers to give is a bit funny, but that is all in the past - I mean, consider that a Russian nationalist must be really pissed off considering that, in the long run, they lost both the mouths of the Danube (though I'm sure they are not worth as much now) and Alaska (which I'm sure is worth much more now - there's oil, and then there's "nucular" bases one could've built...). On the other hand: did Russia actually pay the money, or did it just strike them off Turkey's bill? Plus, one could also note that, since Russia was already engaging in such exchanges at San Stefano, it means that, as far as they were concerned, Romania had no other choice but to take Dobruja (kinda like a gift from a hockey dad to his violinist son). Dahn 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
no, i'm not accusing you of being anti-russian. just that romanians generally have an anti-russian bias imposed for different reasons by interwar, ceausescu-era and post-coup education systems. Why wasn't hers? turkey already agreed to give Dobruja to russia at san stefano and at berlin. the money paid at san stefano were actually about 80% of turkey's war reparations. the tzar, knowing the empire had financial difficulties, agreed to take Dobruja instead. yeah, but romania could have taken a large sum next to Dobruja (note also that Dobruja was much more valuable economically than budjak)Anonimu 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the choice was like "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse"? Turgidson 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
For Romanians in general, I actually tend to agree with you up to some point: a lot of the Romanian discourse is based on assumptions and, at times, on absurdities (both not related to the problems Romania has had from Russia, which are not anybody's collective guilt; also, for that period, Russia and Austria posed equivalent problems for Romania, and Romania herself was not a stranger to backrooms). Well, as you present the issue, you have evidence that Russia did not actually pay something to get Dobruja (it just "lost" money it never had, and which it asked for as war reparations for a war she actually started). What she "could've done" is, of course, counterfactual - she could've done many things (she could've occupied Romania, she could've taken both the Budjak and Dobruja, etc.); it sounds like people who get caught doing something illegal but not murderous for a living and saying "n-am dat în cap la oameni...". You also have other data wrong: first of all, Russia took Dobruja precisely like in the hockey dad analogy - they wanted to give something they did not own at the time in exchange for something they wanted from Romania, as was indicated to Romania from the very start (Romania, afaik, went to largely Berlin as a means to dissuade the "deal" from being imposed on her). Also, the importance the Budjak had at the time was much more than that of Dobruja (Danube navigation anyone?). Additionally, one could note that Dobruja was handed to Romania as it was being demanded by the Bulgarians.
Losers pay war reparations, no matter who started the war. And we should thank them for giving us something in exchange (considering that austria and germany, and, later, carol I were already informed by the russians of their imminent annexation before san stefano, and that the russian administration of dobruja already imposed bulgarian as an official language). For russia maybe, but for romania Dobruja was much better: free land (land abandoned by the muslims who retreated with the turkish army and public lands of the ottoman state), 3 ports (one at the black sea, something impossible to build on budjak's marshy coast), railway etc.Anonimu 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that Romania herself was responsible for a lot of questionable things. For starters, joining the war meant that European powers declined any responsibility for her future (which had all the results it had in Berlin). She also did herself a lot of harm by repeatedly refusing to review the issue of non-Christian (specifically Jewish) emancipation until the very last moment. When she did review it, it was only in respect to Muslims (cause, you know, we did not like Dobruja, but we didn't want to lose it...) and Armenians. Finally, Romania didn't want Dobruja, but waged an "irredentist" war over it in 1913. A land where Romanians were one of the smallest minorities became 90% Romanian through colonization, and the absurd discourse about "Mircea the Elder as Romanian predecessor" flooded the cultural scene by 1914. Dahn 11:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually pre-1877 statistics show romanians were the most numerous christian population in Dobruja (generally they were third after tatars and turks after 1856 and second after turks before 1856). the russian administration statistics and the 1879 romanian ones show a romanian plurality in northern and central dobruja (but almost no turks and very few tatars, due to emigration; a part came back in the following years). Dobruja was totally integrated in romania only 30 years later, when romanians had risen to 50%. The 90% of today is a result of a repatriation convention with turkey in the 30s and of a population exchange with bulgaria in 1940. The nationalistic discourse was already present in the parliamentary debates in 1878. And i'd call the 1913 war outright imperialist.Anonimu 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and they gave us the Snakes Island in exchange, which was a simple rock at that time. Bloody russians, --Eurocopter tigre 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody can beat that land deal, in terms of unit cost, I guess -- but in sheer magnitude and value, I still think the best land deal of all time was the Louisiana Purchase. At 3¢ per acre (7¢ per ha) for roughly the middle third of the Continental US, it was a steal, yes? OK, I guess that Heliade Rădulescu Award has led us astray! Turgidson 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The Award is evil :). Dahn 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Warning! Radulescu received 5,000 golden leis, that can mean much more than 1,000 dollars. --Eurocopter tigre 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 2 golden leis ~ 1 dollar;
  • 1 golden leu ~ 10 regular lei;

Source: University Professor and historian Viorel Toşa --Eurocopter tigre 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure, are these data from around 1880, or from, say, the 1920s? I'm not sure how excatly the exchange rates varied over time, but I'm pretty sure they were rather stable before WWI, with wild variations just after. (Incidentally, if we figure some of this out, with some good refs, I think the info could go in article on the Romanian leu.) Finally, if my rule of three still works, the above exchange rate would give 1 USD ~ 20 (regular) Lei, which is not what genealogy.ro has (1 USD = 5.18 Lei). How to reconcile the discrepancy? Turgidson 13:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is my proposal. First of all, the rates most likely belong on Romanian leu, and all this could be expanded upon over there. This means that, on principle, if the reader wants to know how much the prize was worth ca. 1880, he would be able to find the info here. As I have said, while I do not discourage estimates being made in articles, this would border on OR (since the source I used does not say what it was in dollars), and may prompt other users to view it as such. I have a comment on the discrepancies: though I am not sure of it, both the dollar and the regular-to-gold lei rates were bound to fluctuate (this aside from us not knowing the date for one of the estimates). Furthermore: wikipedia relies on published sources, no matter how accurate unpublished ones may be; readers and editors should have, on principle at least, the opportunity to check the rates, and not to rely on our assurance that they are reliable. Dahn 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree — I am not about to add any of this info in the article, unless it's rock-solid. But, still, it sounds like an interesting angle to pursue, for the sake of the article on the Leu, and many other articles, so as to give readers a better appreciation of how things were valued at the time. By the way, in a somewhat related vein — I remember hearing a long time ago that the Leu was basically at parity with the French Franc at some point in the 1930s. Don't know whether that's true, but I'll try to check it. Ideally, we should have some line graph, plotting various currencies (in color-coded curves), on a time axis from, say, the mid-1800s to the present, with important events (such as wars, revolutions, etc) marked down with vertical spikes, and see how that gibes with the (relative) values of the currencies. Of course, the Deutsche Mark would get out of scale in the years just following WWI, so that would create a problem. OK, perhaps too complicated, but I'd put it on the dream-on-to-do list. Turgidson 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have heard the same thing about the ROL-FF parity, but nothing substantial. The expansion idea is great, and the graphics idea excellent. My knowledge of economics is quite limited, but I would do anything to help in the future. It may require a helluvalot of research, though. Dahn 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What I also heard about the 1930s Leu is that the exchange rate (against the FF, at least) would go up at harvest time, especially when the grain harvest was bountiful, which often happened; I thought that was a touching story. As for historical exchange rates, a starting point could be here; it's quite a good tool, but unfortunately, it only goes back 2,000 days, at least if used for free. Turgidson 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the data from 1860 - 1870. When did Radulescu received the prize? --Eurocopter tigre 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hasdeu received the Ion Heliade Rădulescu award in 1880. Bear in mind that the Romanian War of Independence happened in between -- these sort of events tend to change the value of a currency... Turgidson 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the exchange between golden lei and regular lei didn't changed from 1870 to 1880. However, that means Hasdeu received 10,000 dollars. Any thoughts? --Eurocopter tigre 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's very hard to believe -- $10,000 in 1880 would have been an enormous sum of money (heck, even in 2007 I wouldn't mind it!) Couple of quick examples: doi:10.2307/2277350 — the median annual salary for a clergyman in New England in 1878 was $975; doi:10.2307/1168097 — the average salary of an Iowa superintendent of schools in 1913-14 was $1,014, while that of a grade teacher in 1917-18 was $612. Now, what was the average salary per annuum in a comparable profession in Romania in 1880? My guess is that it must have been considerably less than $1,000... Turgidson 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to rant for a bit. What I find unbelievable is that they gave Hasdeu more than one dollar for his contributions. Consider that they also paid through their nose for the Etymologicum - it may be an interesting read, but large portions of it are evidence of delirium. Then again, if you consider the Laurian fiasco, Hasdeu was probably money well spent. No wonder Maiorescu canceled all payments to such projects the moment he took over. Dahn 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Caragiale wrote some poem about him: http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Magnum_Mophtologicum :-) bogdan 23:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's just superb. I didn't know about it. Though I have to say that the funniest thing I ever read concerning him was more about his father Tadeu (in the future, we may have an article on him); anyway, Zamfir Arbore wrote about him that he was a great Romanian, though, get this, he was "unfortunately unable to speak Romanian".
And then there's Panu's recollections - when reading through them, I came to the conclusion that Hasdeu was the object of, on average, one joke per day. Dahn 23:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, maybe Caragiale, Arbore, and Panu were just jealous of Hasdeu's ten grand?  :) Turgidson 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The funny thing about Arbore is that he was actually being serious :). Dahn 09:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, the article has become an FA. Excellent job Dahn, and keep up the good work! --Eurocopter tigre 19:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and everyone else for your/their support. Dahn 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
My sincerest congratulations, Dahn—a well-deserved FA. La mai mare, as they say. Or, jamais deux sans trois? Turgidson 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thank you and I remain indebted to everyone who supported it. I'm a bit jaded about Sebastiani, but, since it was theorized that I must, I am going to redo the references eventually, and make it trois. The sad thing is that I wouldn't even have referenced it like that had I not seen people wasting their time copyediting my usual references system in various articles... I'm also sorry that I leave people hanging - I was rather busy these past days, and limited my edits to getting some essentials out of the way. Dahn 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I started reading through the article since it is going to appear on the main page and I was struck by two things immediately: the first sentence is much too long (I got lost) and the notes could be condensed. I would suggest that the editors break up the first sentence right away and condense the notes after "main page day" (which can be hectic - I've done two). Awadewit | talk 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)