Talk:Teodor Boldur-Lățescu

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Boldur-Lățescu

• ... that Moldavian rebel Teodor Boldur-Lățescu (pictured), who "killed or wounded several soldiers" of the Romanian Army in April 1866, went on to serve Romanian governments as a Prefect? Source: Quote from Radu Rosetti in Pînișoară, p. 162; multiple sources quoted in the article for his ending up as a prefect

Boldur-Lățescu recovering from his wounds

• • ALT1: ... that Moldavian rebel Teodor Boldur-Lățescu (pictured) was twice beaten up on circus grounds–once for insulting Wallachian officers of the Romanian Army, and a second time for cruelty to animals? Source: The first incident is detailed in Bogdan, pp. 103, 105–108, 114–115; the second one in Șuțu, pp. 451–452.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce Schroeder
• Comment: ALT could also use the picture that Boldur-Lățescu took of himself while injured, but it is a bit low-resolution.

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC).

• I don't have the books so taking on trust. Checked no copyvio. Asked for a few clarifications. Suggest you translate titles in bibliography. Apart from that looks fine. I prefer ALT1. Please ping me when you have done. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Chidgk1: Done. Dahn (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It is not essential for DYK but if you want to go for "good article" in future I suggest you add the translations of the titles in the bibliography such as "Regele Carol I și a doua sa capitală. Relații istorico-politice scrise din inițiativa primarului Iașului G. G. Mârzescu" and so on. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• For reasons I specified elsewhere, I view that as a non-essential burden, and I also don't recall it being a part of the GA process -- not was I asked to translate titles for any of my GAs. It is also rather redundant: the titles in themselves may clarify absolutely nothing about what's in the source, how reliable it is etc., and the translations are bound to create room for superfluous edits: any translation I provide can have alternatives, as long as it is not the official version -- while "Regele Carol I și a doua sa capitală. Relații istorico-politice scrise din inițiativa primarului Iașului G. G. Mârzescu" is pretty straight-forward, other titles are not. Consider "'Valahii ne-au înșelat'. Chestiunea compensațiilor Iașului în acțiunea politică moldovenească după unire (1874–1902)". Is it: "'The Wallachians Have Conned Us'. The Issue of Iași Compensations in Moldavian Political Action after the Union (1874–1902)"? Is it "'Wallachians Have Cheated on Us'. The Issue of Compensations for Iași within Moldavian Political Action after the Union (1874–1902)"? Etc. etc. Any small variation in such translations can be challenged and create discussions that lead nowhere, and for absolutely no benefit to anyone. Dahn (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - alt text for images is required for DYK - if difficult for you to write I can do for you. Let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are required at all, and they have not been for the DYK article I wrote and which is on the main page exactly as we speak. It's not that I find them difficult to write, it's that I consider them remarkably stupid: it's one thing to tell a visually challenged person what they could be looking at in a diagram that relates to the text, it is absolutely ridiculous, and borderline cruel, to tell them what they could pick up from a portrait. Not to mention that descriptions are bound to be subjective when they veer into any sort of detail that's not also in the caption, and which, if properly written, already spells out what the image is of. Dahn (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider: June 1867 cartoon in the "Red" magazine Ghimpele: Boldur-Lățescu and Nicolae Rosetti-Rosnovanu pushing Moldavia off the Tarpeian Rock and into the mouth of the Russian Bear. Prime Minister Ion Brătianu and War Minister Tobias Gherghely are shown attempting a rescue. What would we have in the alt that's not in the caption? "Brătianu is wearing a beard and a frock coat"? That's going to benefit the blind how? Dahn (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Boldur-Lățescu in 1870, while recovering from his fracas with police -- "In case you weren't convinced that this is a picture of a wounded man, he's wearing bandages and reclining in what may or may not be a bed, possibly with white sheets that blend into the background. He's also wearing a mustache and beard, which we're sure will help you conjure in your mind a picture exactly like the one we published". Dahn (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I am just following what it says at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide#If_there_is_an_image Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that alt is in any way useful here. The reviewing guide (which seems not to be a rule per se) does specify that the text would have to be useful. Dahn (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The comment suggesting the hospital pic is crossed out - so you don't want to use that one? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• May I just say that the objections being raised here and on the talk page are becoming downright obtuse? Allow me to list a few reasons:
  • It’s DYK, not FA or even GA. Recent DYKs include: John Land (field hockey) (note the blog post), Hyun Ji Shin (note the level of sourcing on that), Cytosis (board game) (the one-sentence section), Pushbacks in Greece (the neutrality dispute), Mimi Fawaz (the citation to a talent agency and a conference announcement), etc. By contrast, this is a deeply serious article.
  • This idea that we only discuss the subject just isn’t true of any biography, hardcover or virtual. Most people didn’t grow up on desert islands, and you sort of have to talk about surrounding actors. One can’t write a coherent biography of Napoleon without going into his generals, of Thomson Jefferson without lengthy digressions on John Adams, of Hitler without sketching Göring, etc. OK, we have hyperlinks here, but still, given that TBL’s siblings are interesting enough to be covered by the sources but will never have articles themselves, it’s frivolous to object.
  • Also, this concern for the tender sensibilities of bored readers misses the point. If you’re reading about an obscure figure from 19th-century Romania (even by the standards of that time and place), I can bet you appreciate a little extra color.
  • Alt text isn’t required if it’s not useful, which it isn’t in this case.
• Anyway, let’s stop making Dahn jump through hoops and just pass the thing already. Whatever there was to be said has been said, and anything else at this point is basically wasting the time of a valuable volunteer. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Approving both original and ALT1 hooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)

• @Dahn and Chidgk1: any chance the "cruelty to animals" bit could be cited before I promote? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for spotting that. The bit of text was lost during some seriously flawed edit which misread it. It's the part I just restored, and which I think Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) was able to review -- before it had been removed without either one of us noticing. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P6 without image

Info on sister and delegations

Hi @Dahn:, I saw that you disagreed with my removal of information about his sister's actions during the riots and the delegations. [1]. The reason I removed this info is that this is an article about Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, not his sister, the April 3 riot, or Rosnovanu. Therefore, I felt that information not directly pertaining to Teodor, or giving background information to help explain Teodor's actions, was not relevant and off-topic for this particular article (and would be better placed in other articles). I'm also mindful that the sections are quite large; the more information in an article, the less likely someone is to read it. I'm not going to remove the information again, but I hope my rationale will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Hi. I view the info you removed as integral to the text, since the riot and TBL are so closely connected; the info on his sister participating directly alongside him is immediately pertinent, as would anything on people with that close a kinship doing something in tandem. I summarized the main points about the riots, including the core views of the related controversies, and things to give the reader the context (claims that it was a popular Moldavian movement vs claims that it was a Russian-made affair, for instance), because this is after all about the leader of the rebellion; if we ever have an article on the riot/movement itself, it would be about the size of this entire article.

I also tend to dislike very small sections, and would certainly not sacrifice info I view as relevant to make the sections smaller, or to have more people read the article -- my focus is more that the people who do read the article find all the info that would give them a coherent, as complete as possible (short of becoming trite), record of the person and their achievements or controversies. Dahn (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the delegation: what that bit refers to is his and the others being delegated to Rosnovanu's home. You removed the bit of text that clarified where and how they met Rosnovanu's mother. There was also a portion of text you removed under the mistaken assumption that it was about TBL's brother, when it fact it was about TBL himself. But please note that I left most of your other edits in, and have no real objection to them -- though in some cases they seem like you rendered the text less enjoyable by turning to more stereotyped phrasing and removing clauses that, IMO, improve flow, I did not blindly revert you, and accept your verdict as a fresh pair of eyes. Dahn (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dahn: Thanks for your response. I also dislike short sections; I tend to want sections to be 3-4 paragraphs long while the sections in this article are 5-6 (very long paragraphs). I think this article is well written, but is off-putting to readers unfamiliar with the topic because of the long sections and paragraphs. I suggest removing any information that is not needed and splitting up the sections that are longer than 4 paragraphs. I came across this article at DYK, hoping to review it, but I saw another editor was also making edits, so I don't want to edit at the same time. I might return back to this later, but other editors may review it before I get around to it. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I strongly object again to the removal of information that you have decided is not needed, for the reasons I have explained. I also don't see six-paragraph section as excessively long, nor the paragraphs as excessively long -- I have written content for many years, and this is the first time I'm encountering this objection (which, I note, is not rooted in the WP:MOS). I also don't know what sort of hypothetical reader you're referring to in your claim about the sections -- you were able to read the article (and found it eminently readable), the other reviewer was able to read the article. Dahn (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not necessarily object to having smaller sections (say, 4 paragraphs) is we absolutely have to (do we?); but there is absolutely no way I can think of in which you can achieve that, other than arbitrarily removing text, which I will, again, wholeheartedly veto. Not to mention that, during your edits, you had created 2- or 3-paragraph sections, which are excessively short. Dahn (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Info on how he is viewed now in Moldova?

Is there any? For example mentioned in school history books? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Interesting question. The thing to remember is that Moldova is the legal and geographic successor to Bessarabia, the Moldavian Democratic Republic, and the Moldavian SSR, which is only the bit of Moldavia that was under Russian rule at the time when TBL was active. I think he is largely ignored in Moldova, not least of all since the Moldovans are divided on how to view themselves and the Romanians (some textbooks refer to Romanian history as the core topic of history, others to Bessarabian history, and only some to Moldavian history as distinct from both -- the latter position is the most risky one, I presume, since it would cause a diplomatic conflict by effectively claiming Romanian Moldavia for Moldova, as Greater Moldova).

The one study I could find by a Moldovan author is Grosul's, quoted in the text. I did summarize his points and his main arguments about TBL's being a popular movement. Grosul is what you would call a "Moldovenist", meaning that, like the young TBL, he views Romania as imperialistic and Moldavian as an identity; however, unlike TBL, who seemed not to care at all about Bessarabia (despite serving there as a prefect), Grosul probably views Bessarabia/Moldova as the incarnation of what is left from that Moldavian identity. If I'm allowed this observation: Grosul's claims only work if he ignores that TBL himself tuned into a Romanian loyalist (he mutters something along the lines of "TBL later supported a confederation with Wallachia, rather than a separation" -- which is factually incomplete, simply silent on the fact that TBL became a prefect of the centralized state and, again, a representative of that Romanian imperialism in Bessarabia, no less). He is also possibly entirely ignorant of the dispute, late in TBL's life, when TBL shocked other Moldavian autonomists by claiming Iași wasn't even worth a rebate.

I would've loved to add a direct quote from Grosul specifically about how TBL should be viewed today, as I would like all points of view to be featured, however shaky they may be (they are at the very least interesting on a cultural level). However, Grosul offers no such insight, and simply moves on with the narrative, skipping directly to the 1880s. Dahn (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, though, TBL is also largely unknown in Romania, including in his Iași and Neamț. For instance, Hogea seems to be blissfully unaware that the TBL he's writing about, whom he knows as the National Liberal politico in Piatra, had any background as a sanguine secessionist. Dahn (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Just curious - why did you decide to write in English straight away rather than starting with an article on Romanian Wikipedia? Because there would have been an edit war there? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not likely, no -- in fact, they already have articles on related topics, and they seem quite stable. One thing is my preference for writing in English, for contributing to the topics being known to a wider audience; I've done this for a while, and I'm pretty much cut off from that project. Another one is that Romanian Wikipedia is notoriously incapable of maintaining good quality articles -- they could be vandalized without anyone caring, for instance. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

How relevant to Ukraine?

I noticed you added Ukraine project - curious how that is relevant Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Purely geographical. He was a prefect of what is now part of Ukraine (half of southern Bessarabia, or about a third of the Budjak); he also owned land there, in Caracurt/Karakurt. Dahn (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The definitions of Moldavia

Okay, this looks like it would need further clarification here. See the second of these three maps. TBL spent almost his entire life in the blue area, whose capital was Iași. If you will now glance at the very last map, you'll notice that all of Moldova (red outline) is still outside that blue area, and covers most of what was in green during TBL's life. See the pink section at the bottom, also in that last map? That is the Budjak, most of which belonged to Moldavia in 1857--1859, and to Romania (well, the United Principalities) in 1859--1878. That is the area where TBL served as prefect, and in fact was kicked out of following the Russian annexation of 1878. If you glance at the red line, you'll notice that the area is still entirely outside Moldova -- it is part of the Ukraine, hence TBL's inclusion with Ukrainian history, but not (also) Moldovan history.

Now, I would concede that perhaps most articles that relate to ancient Moldavia, or are about Bessarabians living in modern Romania, or etc. could belong in Project Moldova as well; I have personally included several who fit that criterion in that project. However, TBL is in absolutely no way connected to Moldova within its borders, borders which existed at the time, and throughout his short life. I see no point why he would be featured in that project, other than (a perfectly excusable) unfamiliarity with the topic. Dahn (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of "caucus"?

For us native English speakers who are not Americans what does "caucus" mean in this article please? And for any Americans reading this comment is it the meaning here understandable to a high school graduate in USA? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It has ceased being an Americanism since the early 20th century. Its definition is pretty standard, for instance: "a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy a presidential caucus; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause". Dahn (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about other nationality native speakers of English (if any are reading please comment) but I am pretty sure that most Brits when asked the meaning of "caucus" will not know. Those who give an answer (like myself) will mainly say that it is some weird not really democratic temporary political group which is part of selecting American presidents. Others might remember it vaguely from one of the Alice books such as "Alice in Wonderland". I think we should keep it simple so more readers understand - write "group" or "secret group" or something equally understandable. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I am Romanian and I know the meaning. I'm also not sure why you would assume that every word used must be dumbed down to the point where nobody unfamiliar with the word makes a 5-second effort to search for it (definitions such as the one I provided are bound to show in any dictionary). Also, the fact that the word appears in a widely-read 19th-century work by a Brit would sort of clarify how American the term is by now. Dahn (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• As I previously noted here, this kind of badgering is becoming absurd:
  • WP:ENGVAR permits different varieties of English, even if “caucus” were unknown in the United Kingdom (it isn’t).
  • This isn’t Simple English Wikipedia. We’re allowed to use language that doesn’t sound like a children’s book. (One of the WP:FACR is “prose that is engaging and of a professional standard”.) We don’t necessarily appeal to a lowest common denominator audience. Not every reader can understand everything in every article: how many, for example, will fully grasp Boolean satisfiability problem?
  • Google is seconds away.
  • WP:STICK. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)