Talk:Nicolae Milescu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
Nicolae Milescu is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
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.
[edit] 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)
