Talk:Nikolai Spathari

Old talk

This is a hasty translation of the text from ru.wiki for further processing. Please wikify and proofread.

Milescu, known in Russian as Nikolai Gavrilovich Spafariy, led the Russian embassy to Beijing in 1675-78. The embassy consisted of 150 men, including the guards. It was instructed to discuss incidents on the Amur River border between Russia and China, to establish trade relations with China, and to survey Russian lands along the Amur River.

Upon reaching Yeniseisk, Milescu sent one of his men, Ignatiy Milovanov, to the Chinese court in order to inform the emperor about the purpose of their embassy. Milovanov was the first European known to have crossed the Amur, reaching Beijing by the shortest route possible. Milescu followed in his steps until the Chinese border and established his camp on the Nungtsiang River , waiting for the news from Milovanov. The latter returned to the camp on February 18 and, taking Milescu's letter to the tsar with him, proceeded to Moscow. Milescu, on the other hand, crossed Manchuria and arrived to Beijing in the middle of May. His diplomacy proved unsuccessful, and he returned back to Siberia by the same route in Spring 1677.

In his road journal, Milescu correctly described the middle course of the Ob River, Irtysh, and Angara. He assumed that the Ob issued from Lake Teletskoye in the Altai. He was also the first person to describe Lake Baikal and all the rivers feeding the lake. He was the first to point out the Baikal's unfathomable depth.

On his way through Siberia, Milescu used astrolabe to establish coordinates of some setlements. His materials were later used by the Jesuits who took considerable interest in China. Upon returning to Moscow, he submitted to the Foreign Ministry three travelogues - "Travels through Siberia to the Chinese borders", "Travel notes", and "Description of China".

In his treatises, Milescu summed up the knowledge of Russian explorers pertaining to East Siberia. He believed that the Amur was the largest river in the world and correctly mentioned its main tributaries. His idea that there was a vast mountain chain stretching from Baikal Lake to the Okhotsk Sea, though fundamentally wrong, was given credit by many geographers until the mid-20th century. He also heard rumours about the Sakhalin, which he supposed to be the same island as the Hokkaido, thus considerably exaggerating its dimensions.

In 1674, Milescu was recorded as taking part in the tsar's negotiations with Moldavia and Wallachia as to their concerted actions against the Turks. In 1695, he participated in Peter the Great's Azov Campaign.

Last name

Are we not supposed to use the same last name in the article? --Thus Spake Anittas 13:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The illustrated book is Russian, and the author's name is spelled Spathari there. So it would be incongruous to use another name in the caption. Per our naming conventions, the page should be moved to the name by which Milescu is better known. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what name the book is using, we should use the same last name in the whole of the article. This is due to the policy of name conventions, as you have already mentioned, but also because we want to be consistent. I'm not sure what name is more popular than the other, but if Spathari is the more popular name, then we should use that one. Either way, we should use the same last name in the article. On many books written by Voltaire, it says F. Marie-Aroute, but articles mention him by the name Voltaire. Anything else would be inconsistent and risk confusing the reader. Another thing: it doesn't say he was born in Moldavia. It does say he was born in Vaslui and the article makes it clear that he was Moldavian, but nonetheless, it should say "Vaslui, Moldavia"; you always mention the state that one was born, when dealing with biographies. Am I wrong? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, Wikipedia will not collapse because the guy is identified as Spathari in the caption. Wikipedia is not consistent by definition (at least WP:POINT expressedly states so). --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not a big deal, but why not fix it when it can be fixed? I think we can still use the name, but under a different formulation. I don't know what the book is called, but say that its name is Diary of Spathari. You could then write, "The first copy of The Diary of Spathari." --Thus Spake Anittas 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this particular point is major, by I tend to agree with Anittas: names should not fluctuate in articles, wherever this is possible. That said, I do not object to renaming the entire article and switching the name order in the first paragraph, if that is to prove necessary. To Anittas: I would find it a bit redundant to add Moldavia a second time, next to Vaslui, but either way works for me. Dahn 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moldavo-Lacone

I think it's obvious "Moldavo-Lacone" was a typo of the French editors for Moldo-Vlacone or Moldo-Valachian since Moldavia was often called at that time Moldo-Vlachia/Moldovlahia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.203.215 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all, unless you have a source to back that up. However, I'd like to know what the word "prosonym" means. --Cei Trei (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name

User:Ушкуйник (wtf!) changed the article name from Nicolae Milescu to Nikolai Spathari, arguing that "The form of his name Milescu was not used by Nikolai Spathari". There are some issues with this change:

One, the claim is unsourced;
Two, the article makes the following claim (which is sourced): "The name Milescu was adopted by his parents when they settled in Milesti";
Three, even if he (Milescu) didn't sign his name as such, that wouldn't necessarily mean that wasn't his name;
Four, even if his name wasn't Milescu--and he used the name Spathari--I believe there's a Wikipedia rule that states we use the name they're most known for (examples: Billy the Kid instead of William H. Bonney);
Five, it seems he was also known under the name Milescu, in parallel with Spataru (in both Romanian and Russian), so the argument that he shouldn't use Milescu because he never signed it as such, is not convincing;
Six, if we are not to use Milescu, shouldn't we use the Romanian version of his name (Nicolae Spatarul) over the Russian one (Nikolai Spathari)?
Seven, if one decides to change the name of the article, shouldn't they also make all the necessary changes in the rest of the article, as in this case, change Milescu to Spathari?

I hope the user who made the change will reply to each point raised, but in specific, what he needs to prove is that Nicolae's last name wasn't Milescu and that he is more known in academia as Nikolai Spathari instead of Nicolae Milescu. (Encyclopaedia Britannica uses Nicolae Milescu, as do other Wikipedia languages). --Cei Trei (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only assume that user:Dahn agrees to the name change, since he hasn't raised any objections to the change, even though he has made edits since the change was made. It would help the discussion, Dahn, if you offer your explanation as to why the Russian version of the name should be used, and why Spathari/Spatarul instead of his family name of Milescu. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no proof he ever called himself Milescu, or was known as such before the mid 19th century. Contemporary Moldavian documents show him either as Nicolae, Neculai, or Niculae, with "Spătariul" or "Spatariu" either prepended or appended. There doesn't seem to be an established English name: those that speak of him in Romanian context call him "Nicolae Milescu", those that discuss him in Russian context, "Nikolai Spathari".Anonimu (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If we assume so without argument (then source 4 is false and should be removed), we should still establish whether we should use the Russian- or the Romanian version of the name. --Cei Trei (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikolai Spathari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617100141/http://www.phantasma.ro/caiete/caiete/caiete12/27.html to http://www.phantasma.ro/caiete/caiete/caiete12/27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)