Template:Did you know nominations/Axinte Frunză
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Axinte Frunză
- ... that scholar Axinte Frunză wanted Romania to join the Central Powers in 1916, espousing "a vision that was profoundly anti-statist (with hints of anarchism), populist, and virulently anti-Russian"?
- Source: Cușco, p. 273: Acest volum este, în esență, un pamflet germanofil și „stângist”, atacând statu‐quo‐ul social și politic al statului român din acea perioadă. Poziția lui Frunză se baza pe o viziune profund anti‐etatistă (cu accente anarhiste), populistă și virulent anti‐rusă. [...] Cartea lui Frunză prezintă o critică acerbă a defectelor politicii și societății românești și respinge ezitările elitelor de la București de a se alătura Puterilor Centrale. ("This volume [by Frunză] is essentially a Germanophile and 'leftist' pamphlet, attacking the social and political status quo of the Romanian state during that period. Frunză's position was based on a vision that was profoundly anti-statist (with hints of anarchism), populist, and virulently anti-Russian. [...] Frunză's book presents a scolding critique of defects in Romanian politics and society and rejects the hesitations of Bucharest elites in joining the Central Powers.")
Dahn (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC).
Hi @Dahn: thank you for this well-researched and very interesting article! It is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and presentable. QPQ done. Hook interesting, in body, with a citation accepted in good faith. The only qualm I have is that I don't see where the sentence "Many of his literary works were collected for print, but remained unpublished" in the lede is reflected in the body.
- Thank you right back! It is a bit harder to find, granted, but see this portion: A while after, a manuscript comprising her late husband's novellas was assigned for review and printing at Editura pentru literatură, but was probably mishandled, and was viewed as lost by 1969. Also: his body of writings remained poorly catalogued. Dahn (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
