Talk:Luceafărul (poem)

Interesting edits

I want to apologize again, Fred Zepelin, for the insulting remarks I made about your first edits on this article. I want to thank you for continuing to edit it, you are obviously improving it greatly -- and by acknowledging that the Ștefănescu source actually exists, and that it has been quoted at least partly correctly by a relatively intelligent editor such as myself. You have now proceeded to critically investigate other citations from this and other sources, as here -- this is very good stuff, because a filter is often needed on what your relatively intelligent colleagues can read in the sources; they obviously can be wrong about stuff, and you obviously can be very right.

Some would argue that such edits to correct the text are somewhat cosmetic. For instance, some would argue that reading "famous as the only Eminescu biopic" as necessarily meaning that the film is famous (and not that this biopic aspect is its only claim to fame) is a tad unreasonable; but I for one view it as an outstanding contribution, which clarifies an important issue that would have otherwise gone completely unnoticed.

I must acknowledge that I am a tad puzzled by your other edit: you changed "Ștefănescu noted that, by 2015, Hyperion was perhaps more famous than his creator, like Hamlet is to William Shakespeare" to "Eminescu's fame was rivaled by that of his creation Hyperion, as Hamlet is to William Shakespeare." In your edit summary, you note: "source seems to imply mostly equal fame, not more famous". This is a very astute observation, once you read one phrase on the article (the first one), and no other phrase, such as for instance the ones right after it. What we have in the source (again, big thank you for acknowledging that the source actually exists!) is: Shakespeare este concurat ca notorietate de Hamlet. Cervantes – de don Quijote. Numai un scriitor de geniu poate crea un personaj care să ajungă mai cunoscut decât el. Eminescu este concurat şi el de un personaj al său, luceafărul din poemul cu acelaşi titlu.

A relatively intelligent editor such as myself awaits clarification on this topic: how should one read that succession of phrases, containing the clause mai cunoscut decât el, as illuminated by your edit summary ("mostly equal fame, not more famous")? I will therefore revert this one edit of yours, until further clarification, from you and any other speakers of Romanian who are more-than-relatively intelligent, as to what Ștefănescu meant, and how I should read phrases in my native language. Cheers. Dahn (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps the comment above comes off an unnecessarily snarky. To highlight the point of the (minor) content dispute, which I hope gets an answer:

The full quote from the source is: Shakespeare este concurat ca notorietate de Hamlet. Cervantes – de don Quijote. Numai un scriitor de geniu poate crea un personaj care să ajungă mai cunoscut decât el. Eminescu este concurat şi el de un personaj al său, luceafărul din poemul cu acelaşi titlu. The third phrase contains the clause: mai cunoscut decât el.

The quote unambiguously argues that the source views Hyperion as more famous than Eminescu. The contention here is that the source was misquoted (simply put: that I misquoted it). This replaces a previous contention, which was that the source does not exist (simply put: that I invented it).

Is my reading of the source still disputed? If yes, please explain by whom and on what grounds.Thank you. Dahn (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read both sources. Regarding Fred Zepelin's second edit [1], this is technically correct: 5. Exista un singur film despre viata lui Mihai Eminescu, Luceafarul, regizat de Emil Loteanu, si aparut in anul 1987. is everything that is said, and "that this biopic aspect is its only claim to fame" is not verifiable using this source, not even indirectly. I would favor Fred's version here.

Regarding the first edit [2], Dahn's version is the correct one as he showed above. I favor Dahn's version here.

So yeah, the dispute is settled and the article should be kept as is, and this section should not get any further messages. By the way, it's worth nothing Fred Zepelin is also a Romanian-speaker [3]. Super Ψ Dro 10:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Super. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Super Dromaeosaurus: In your assessment above, you clearly state, as relates to the Ștefănescu/Shakespeare/Hamlet citation: "Dahn's version is the correct one as he showed above. I favor Dahn's version here." Yet the other editor has since returned with a revert, arguing that you have endorsed his vaguer wording. I will note again that the other editor originally argued that the source itself does not exist, or that the quote has been fabricated (it really is up for interpretation which of the two was being suggested). Can I ask that you please look into what is going on here? Dahn (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Also, if we are now in fact commenting on this section, I will clarify that the Loteanu biopic wording was merely a turn-of-phrase, meant to fuse the text in with other info already in there. It was not meant to suggest that the film is especially famous, but simply that the source notes it for being the only Eminescu biopic. The wording was perhaps bad, but it was not meant to attribute to the source claims that the source does not make, and I regard this reading as an attempt at poisoning the well (by suggesting that I am advancing WP:OR). I did not object to the rephrasing of that tidbid, nor did I view it as absolutely necessary. I do however view as somewhat laughable that I'm being suspected of purposefully tweaking this article in general, and in particular to promote a Moldovan film from the 1980s; whoever cannot picture how I would not come up with the perfect wording for one or two or even 40 out of 10000 tidbits in an article of this scope has possibly never spent time editing content on this scale. On the other hand, whoever implicitly accuses me of fabricating quotes and references should back up that implication. Dahn (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fred Zepelin, as Dahn notes I expressed support for this version [4]. Dahn's wording of the information in the source regarding Hyperion's fame is the most accurate one while yours regarding that of the biopic is the most accurate one. Regarding the former you can see in the source [5] the opening sentence: Shakespeare este concurat ca notorietate de Hamlet. Cervantes – de don Quijote. Numai un scriitor de geniu poate crea un personaj care să ajungă mai cunoscut decât el. Word by word translation: "Shakespeare is rivaled in notoriety by Hamlet. Cervantes – by Don Quixote. Only a genius writer can create a character who becomes more famous than himself." The second phrase is clearly about Eminescu and Hyperion per the source's title and scope. So again, things should remain as they are following Dahn's latest revert.

Worth mentioning that Ștefănescu seems to be saying that while Shakespeare and Cervantes are perhaps as known as their characters, Eminescu went one level above being the only genius writer who managed to create a character more famous than himself. Currently this article equates the cases of Eminescu and Shakespeare (like Hamlet is to William Shakespeare.). Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Shakespeare is rivaled in notoriety by Hamlet. Cervantes – by Don Quixote. Only a genius writer can create a character who becomes more famous than himself." Doesn't this happen all the time? Everyone knows who Superman is but not the brothers who created him. Kids can identify Frankenstein's monster, but don't know who Mary Shelley is. Consider Big Bird, Mr. Spock, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys...characters routinely become more famous than their creators. Merian C. Cooper could have told you that; it doesn't place him in some special realm of "genius writers", it makes him typical. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

BBQboffin: And what are you suggesting, based on that (in itself legitimate) inference? That we remove a qualified opinion by a literary critic because you disagree with it? That we add an editorial note saying that you disagree with the source? Or simply that we note your opinion here? The former two would be in terrible breach of wikipedia policies; the latter is, for all intents and purposes, satisfied by this comment of mine. Dahn (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It also does strike me as odd that the quote is not read in its context, the paragraph it is included in. It is not rendered as a generic comment about genius writers and their creations; that part is a secondary point, on which Ștefănescu may be right or wrong (we don't get to comment on the accuracy of that opinion, we just render it -- or, more exactly, we don't go into it at all, since no version proposed rendered in full the quote provided here in green). The main point is about the topic of this article: how, by that point in time, The Morning Star was (per Ștefănescu) more famous than Eminescu. This is a qualified source making a qualified comment about a very specific evolution of this character in relation to its creator. That part is not addressed by comments such as "so was King Kong to Cooper", simply because they do not say anything specific about the topic of this article. Dahn (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest the article briefly mention why Alex. Ștefănescu is a "qualified source"; if he himself is not notable, the reader should be informed what makes his opinion about Eminescu a "qualified" one. BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that România Literară published his literary criticism itself makes his opinion qualified. Beyond that, yes, he’s notable; an article about him will eventually be written. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall, this discussion has a familiar ring. Dahn (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that anybody puzzled about Ștefănescu's (contextual) notability take the trouble to search a bit for him and then present a fact-rooted opinion as to why he isn't notable, or qualified, or both. They'll presumably find out for themselves, for instance by going over his obituary that he was a recipient of awards presented by the Romanian Academy and the Writers' Union and the syndicate of television professionals, a lifelong columnist at some of the top Romanian magazines, and a long-serving host of cultural programs on Romania's public television. This would presumably prove something about his notability, and also something about his qualifications -- though, as Biruitorul notes, the very fact that his article (in fact: his column), the one cited here, has appeared in the main literary magazine of Romania is perhaps enough indication of his qualifications without performing an extra search. But performing such a search before suggesting what should and shouldn't go in the article would be terribly considerate to other editors you're engaging in this discussion, toward the time they have to waste on entertaining this in-vitro proposal; it would also show that the discussion is actually about something tangible. You know, rather than a "here's another thought" format. Dahn (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Eminescu is (and was in the 1970s) a pervasive presence in Romanian life: it’s difficult to go a week without hearing or seeing some reminder of him. That simply isn’t the case for, say, Edward Stratemeyer. So in that sense, his being eclipsed by his creation is in fact remarkable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi all, I wonder if anyone could explain the difference between the modern spelling of 'Luceafărul' and its original publication as 'Luceafărul'? I came to know the poem through its operatic setting by Nicolae Bretan. Thanks, MinorProphet (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@MinorProphet: Hi right back! I think you mean "its original spelling as Luceafĕrul", with the ĕ (rather than the updated ă). This is a bit OR, as no source explains it outright as applied to this topic, but see Romanian alphabet#Obsolete letters about the "etymological" spelling that was the vogue in 1883: since the word was derived from a Latin Luciferus, the schwa was marked as deriving from an e (there was no difference in pronunciation). This etymological nonsense was abandoned a while before Bretan's derivative work, which was never spelled with an ĕ. Come to think of it, I'll have another stab at finding a source that goes into this sort of detail, as it may be useful to have it in the article. Dahn (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dahn: Thanks for your swift and helpful reply, sorry for this tardy one after a brief Wikibreak. I would say that your useful explanation above hardly needs a more specific reference than the 'Obsolete letters' link, if you were to add the information to the article. Thanks for clearing up my query. MinorProphet (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved