Talk:Alexandru Ioan Cuza

Untitled

Shouldn't the main title of this page be Alexandru Ioan Cuza, rather than the English translation of the name? The man's name was not "Alexander John Cuza". --SeekingOne 14:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

No. You cannot stop progress. The English disrespect is perpetrating together with the popcorn culture. And we also enjoy calling their people: Gheorghe Tufis, Veta a-II-a, and Jean Lipitura(007). Please don't deny us the small pleasures. Novac3 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please use the native proper name, using the English Alphabet. There is no policy I know on Wikipedia.org about translating the proper names to John, or Emmanuelle from french to Emma, or Michelle to Michael. Please SeekingOne do try to bring out this matter on Wikipedia community forums agenda, and let me know, will you ? Bogdan 188.25.28.82 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article changed to Alexandru Ioan Cuza

In order to apply the same rule for all names, I do not think there should be much debate about this fact: the name of the prince is Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Of course, with a mention about the English spelling inside the article.
(Rgvis (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the name must be Alexandru Ioan Cuza. For example, there is no Jack Chirac instead of Jacques Chirac :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.194.174 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time you looked through a Romanian dictionary, or even the Romanian wikipedia, and read about Henric VIII, and Ludovic XIV, and Ioan Fără de Ţară, and Petru II Alekseievici, and Andrei Bat(h)ori, and Filip II, and Alexandru Obrenovici, and Gheorghe II, and Iosif II, and Petru II. English usage is English usage. Dahn (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just defamatory. If you think otherwise, please change first the names of Giorgio Napolitano to George Napolitano and Jacques Chirac to Jack Chirac. Later we can see if somebody agrees. Saturnian (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Saturnian, have a second, third and fourth look over my message. Take the examples one by one, and contemplate what the articles I've linked to have in common with each other, and why I have been piping those links. Take as much time as you need, really, then come back to us with a less anodyne reply than "it's defamatory". Dahn (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Saturnian, your edits to the article are counter to Wikipedia:Article titles, and the language your using against Dahn for following WP policy while you are breaking it is not helpful. As regards the source Istoria României în date, this source is not in English, it is in Romanian. It does not qualify as an English book. It is a Romanian book. It is in Romanian. Sorry to repeat myself, but do you understand why I am saying this? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I am closing this as consensus to move (to Alexandru Ioan Cuza. In doing so, I want to emphasize that this result is not a vote count, and that irrelevant arguments have been discounted. This goes, obviously, for the arguments of the nominator, which have been clearly shown to be absurd. As a consequence, it must also apply to those "oppose" votes that merely argued (correctly) against the validity of the nominator's arguments, but beyond that did not contain concrete positive arguments for not moving. I also (obviously) ignored mere "me too" and "I like it" votes. This leaves us with the few actual, policy-based arguments dealing with usage count in English, of which there were just barely enough to make assessment of a consensus possible. From the statements made by those who actually looked into current use in print, it appears that the "Alexandru Ioan" form prevails, by at least some reasonable margin, and at least in more recent decades. Since this argument was not substantially challenged with concrete counter-evidence by oppose voters, it stands and wins the day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note - Further comment invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania

Alexander John Cuza → Alexandru Ioan Cuza – Alexandru Ioan Cuza is the name of this ruler. Nobody translates the names of presidents Giorgio Napolitano to George Napolitano and Jacques Chirac to Jack Chirac. Translating the name is just defamatory . -- Saturnian (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sfântul Andrei is known as Saint Andrew in English sources. Alexandru Ioan Cuza is known as Alexander John Cuza in English sources (search google books for Alexander John Cuza, there are numerous results). You should have at least waited for a consensus before modifying the Romanian Naval Forces article with the Romanian form of the name. Or at least modify the name used in the text AND in the photo description.--Mircea87 (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So Nicolae Ceaușescu should be Nicholas Ceaușescu if "English sources" would referred him as Nicholas ?? Having the name translated is defamatory and it introduces ambiguity. -- Saturnian (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Check WP:TITLE. There are quite a few number of books in English that use the Alexander John Cuza form (as seen here). I don't think it is a translation, it's more like an anglicization. It does not introduce ambiguity for the English readers as the name is already used in numerous books that are written in English.--Mircea87

The first book on this list states that it is derived from Wikipedia articles. A clasic case of circular referencing, and all the more reason for changing. As primarily an English language reader, I personally never came across this odd rendition of his name until this article. RashersTierney (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the other books, there are more pages in that search. There are books from 1906, 1920, 1971, 1996. I usually ignore General Books LLC books or whatever these Wikipedia books are called.--Mircea87 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It a plain translation, it is defamatory translation for a head of state and it leads to ambiguity because one can easily think that Alexander John Cuza and Alexandru Ioan Cuza are TWO different persons! -- Saturnian (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If our entire readership is dead stupid, yes, that is a likely outcome - but otherwise, no, it's maybe the same chance that they would have of believing that "Romania", "Roumania" and "Rumania" are three different countries. If they still do that after all the redirects and the quite obvious explanations, then there's probably nothing we could ever do to help them. Incidentally, it's Romanian users who tend to get confused about the names of people they supposedly know better - I can show you examples of Romanian users who cause disruption by getting Al. J. Cuza mixed up with A. C. Cuza, or Ion Luca Caragiale with Luca Caragiale. It's all a great cycle of sciolism, and you're only encouraging it at this point in time. As for the "defamatory translation for a head of state", let me make the issue even easier for you to take into focus: have you ever heard of Suveranul pontif Ioan Paul II and Elisabeta II a Marii Britanii? Think about it, then get back to us. Dahn (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

After you have been able to change the name of Giorgio Napolitano to George Napolitano and Jacques Chirac to Jack Chirac, then I will read you messages. Saturnian (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the old "I can't hear you" post. Saturnian, it's not vital for me that you read and reply to my posts (though I have a hunch you read them, and cannot reply to them); given the embarrassing nature of your rationale for changing the article title, it would be vital for you to do so. Then maybe, like Daizus' below, your argument would not be one that discredits itself. Others will read they page in good faith, and they will understand as much, regardless of you typing the same Chirac & Napoletano nonsense in bold letters every couple of minutes. Ciao, Dahn (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not wright. It is about the dignity of an important figure of Romanian History. Maybe you don't understand that and your behavior, including personal attacks (like "don't you have anything better to do?"), is not a proper one. Thus, if you will continue, I will report you seriously. Saturnian (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, by all means. Then we'll be discussing your own mass edits and the two new accounts that popped out of nowhere to support your position, and then perhaps we'll even be extending the sock investigation to other areas of your recent activity. I tend to dislike getting myself dragged into wikidrama, as I have many other constructive things to do over here, but enough is enough. Dahn (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You are again wrong... Saturnian (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Books of 2010 derived from Wikipedia articles - "great" argument. Those books are wrong too. There is no excuse for such ridiculity. LegionG (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Struck comment from sock. WilliamH (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually searched the other pages from that link? There are books that were published before wikipedia existed with this designation (Alexander John Cuza). This theory of "circular referencing" is wrong.--Mircea87 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support move - present name is a ridiculous anomaly. RashersTierney (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move - Saturnian (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The institutions bearing his name use the proper name, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, in English writings; for example Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, [1]. -- Saturnian (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support move - The name "Alexander John Cuza" is ridiculous. This funny name indicates a subject of Queen of Great Britain. It's confusing. LegionG (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Struck comment from sock. WilliamH (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being, please see WP:Article titles these RM votes aren't a beauty contest, and if an experienced RM Admin comes along I doubt he/she will be swayed by counting some of the support comments above. What you need to do, Saturnian, is demonstrate from WP:RS that according to recent, lets say post-WWII, mainstream English language sources that you'll find by searching Google Books and Google Scholar, that references such as Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia - World history from 1800 to the present day ed. Robert Blake - 1993 "A German-born prince and Prussian officer, he was elected in 1866 to succeed Alexander John Cuza as Prince of Romania. His pro-German sympathies made him unpopular during the *Franco-Prussian War, but skill in manipulating politicians ..." are the minority and in WP:RS the Romanian spelling for this prince is more common. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And who proved "that according to recent, lets say post-WWII, mainstream English language sources that you'll find by searching Google Books and Google Scholar", Alexander John Cuza is the more common form of the name? Daizus (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, please see here vs here. That is 1950-2011 in Google Scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

... So we are talking 11 Alexander John Cuza vs 6130 Alexandru Ioan Cuza on Google Scholar. What point are you trying to make? --Codrin.B (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am actually neutral, for now. What I demand from all other users is a clear, intelligent, argument about what the consensus is in reliable sources that are indeed in English. Not cheap tricks of the sort "I read about it in Romanian". It's time my fellow Romanians understood that the "it's not his name" defense is absurd - the name in English is the one standardized by English sources, per wikipedia rules and per common sense. The "Jack Chirac" and "George Napoletano" (as far as the "joke" goes, shouldn't it be "George from Naples"?) and "Nicholas Ceauşescu" (again, "Nicholas the Squire"?) arguments are of the most inane kind, and simple counts of ignoratio elenchi. To even take them seriously is to debase this entire threat. I want to see evidence of what most sources use, not rhetoric and appeals to emotion. And I have half a mind to ask for a sockpuppet investigation regarding one of the accounts above. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• I wish to remind every one of the enthusiasts above: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Meaning that we don't vote to rule out the usage in outside sources, and also that establishing proper English usage should perhaps tacitly disqualified the opinions expressed by people who think "ridiculity" is an actual word... Dahn (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move - on a quick glance Google Books search returns over 74k entries for "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" (I know they are many in Romanian, but also see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc) and 794 for "Alexander John Cuza". Daizus (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but those 794 sources that talk about "Alexander John Cuza", many are from Books LLC, a self-reference to Wikipedia. There is simply a very small minority of sources for the "Alexander John Cuza". We should rename the article and stop wasting time and bytes for non-issues.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Books LLC can be removed from search results using syntax such as -inauthor:"Books, LLC" though it's not 100% efficient.--Mircea87 (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know. And you can also add -wikipedia. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Alexandru Ioan Cuza --Terraflorin (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to Alexandru Ioan Cuza - This is ridiculous. Look at the counts from Daizus and other users for Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Even if you count only the English language books, Alexander John Cuza has almost no hits by comparison. The search for "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" OR "Alexandru Ion Cuza" OR "Alexandru Cuza" -universitatea -university -wikipedia filtering by English only, yields 8,720 hits. The results of a similarly filtered search for "Alexander John Cuza" OR "Alexander Cuza" -universitatea -university -wikipedia brings just 3,110 hits; Google Scholar: 6130 hits vs 11 hits Alexander John Cuza vs Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Also please read WP:UE, WP:UCN and WP:SET. I quote from WP:UCN: it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means for the purposes of this poll to even follow up on random false leads, but neither UE, UCN nor SET have applicability in this debate. In fact, UE clearly states: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage", which should imply that, when an anglicized version exists, wikipedia takes it as its own. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on the whole; no policy based arguments whatsoever, except Daizus' admittedly flawed google search. Obviously many people do call him Alexander John Cuza, including the sources for the article; the claim it is defamatory is bizarre. Alexander III of Russia, Alexander the Great, Henry the Lion, Henry IV of France are equally anglicizations; are they defamatory? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see easily that Cuza doesn't bear the title "of Romania" and thus Alexander John Cuza is just a fancy defamatory name. The remark "Obviously many people do call him Alexander John Cuza" is flawed. I am not sure how you can prove that. Saturnian (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been proved, repeatedly, by googling for the phrase. I would have no objection to calling the article Prince Alexander John Cuza, if that is the perceived defamation; but when rulers are normally referred to by surname, there's really no need for more than that. Ludovico Sforza has neither Duke nor of Milan - because the title is unambiguous. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But would you call him Ludwig Strength? Let's stick to WP:UE and WP:UCN--Codrin.B (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You will find that both "Lewis Sforza" and "Louis Sforza" are attested anglicized variants - as to why they're not used there, I frankly urge you to start a debate on that topic at the proper venue. The mock-variant "Ludwig Strength" is absurd, because it answers to no suggestion ever made here or anywhere, and does not accurately reflect any naming practice whatsoever. As for the norms you keeping "invoking" without even reading, as I told you before: they are basically irrelevant in this debate, but if you insist on on quoting WP:UE, make sure you don't skip over the part where it clearly says that, when attested, anglicizations are preferred. I'm not saying that we should have this article at the anglicized variant (but so what if we do?); I'm saying, quite intelligebly, that you need to stick to decent, logical, arguments in stating otherwise. Regards, Dahn (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University ? Probably not, since you "Oppose on the whole". -- Saturnian (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We should call the University what it is called in English; so with the Prince. We are here to communicate with anglophones, not to remodel the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean that University it wrong about his own name - which is absurd. -- Saturnian (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The university argument is another false lead, obviously. The university calls itself whatever it wants to, in English or Romanian, and this has no bearing on how we name the concept its name references. Indeed, it couldn't have, since the two issues are unrelated. An easy example of this is the University of Naples Federico II, named after a guy we call Frederick. A local example is Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, named after a guy we call Stephen III of Moldavia. Dahn (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Except in the most extreme cases, I think that names are best expressed in the subject's native language, not translated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because I know him as Alexandru Ioan Cuza in my country does not mean that this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article. That is why there is an article on the English wikipedia about Michael of Romania and not Mihai of Romania.--Mircea87 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As other wikipedians noted, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the ruler, is best known by his native name Alexandru Ioan Cuza, not other invention. Using the real name is a gesture of respect and tolerance. Put yourself in the situation to have your name translated and to be called with the translated name. I doubt somebody would like this situation. Or, the opponents lack such values? -- Saturnian (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to Michael of Romania, Cuza doesn't bear the title "of Romania" and thus Alexander John Cuza is just a fancy defamatory name. -- Saturnian (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the many reasons why Cuza is not universally known as "of Romania" is that "Romania" simply wasn't a name in general use of the time. He was "of the United Principalities", but that would be redundant. The other titles referred to above, with "X of Russia" and "Y of England", have the "of something" part in the title to distinguish them from "X of Piedmont" and "Y of France". In Cuza's case, this disambiguation is served by the particle "Cuza", which was in fact part of his official title. For an actual parallel, have a glance over John III Sobieski, who, incidentally, was also an elected monarch. Note the name in English and the family name in Polish, with no "of Poland" thrown in there, and with the number clarifying his succession among Johns of Poland. I could go on, by pointing out, say, Sigismund III Vasa and other cases. Do you, at long last, understand something of this discussion? Dahn (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Brittanica (which spells it "Ion", not "Ioan") and Google Scholar searches, which seem to lean heavily toward the Romanian spelling, even when restricted to English-language documents. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is English Wikipedia, not Portugese Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Both forms of name are used in reliable English language sources. The policy issue appears to be which is the more prevalent form in English. Google searches often include references to the eponymous University. However, it appears that Alexandru Ioan Cuza is still more common in English when referring solely to the individual concerned. The supposed 'defamation' is total nonsense and a distraction from collegial debate, as is the apparent canvassing and other questionable interaction. That aside, and it is no trivial matter, the 'common name' clause would appear to support the move. RashersTierney (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support move - Based on the fact that he is more referenced by the Romanian name. Arutdeal (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's a fact, tell me how many of those 74k entries for Alexandru Ioan Cuza from Google Books are from English books. Don't worry, I'll wait.--Mircea87 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please check what others said about the common name. Saturnian (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stricken out !vote by single purpose account. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You can use Google Books' Advanced Book Search to filter by language. The results for "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" OR "Alexandru Ion Cuza" OR "Alexandru Cuza" -universitatea -university -wikipedia filtering by English only, yields 8,720 hits. The results of a similarly filtered search for "Alexander John Cuza" OR "Alexander Cuza" -universitatea -university -wikipedia brings just 3,110 hits. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a borderline case. Both forms are perfectly correct in English. The form we are currently using is the traditional way of speaking about the person in English. It is also the main form of the name used by the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (If you want to verify it: It's volume 7, p. 678, under "Cuza, Alexander John". This is a genuine English name for the man, so under a strict reading of WP:UE it would be what we must use. It is also an old-fashioned way of speaking about the man. Nowadays, in our globalised society, English speakers (and similarly the speakers of most other languages) no longer change foreign names in this way. If he lived today, then he would of course be filed under his normal, Romanian name, in normal, Romanian spelling. But since the other form is already established, it will take some time for it to be replaced -- if that ever happens. (E.g. I don't think de:Friedrich der Große will be known anything but Frederick the Great anytime soon. If anything, having such a genuine English name is a mark of honour. It means that someone is sufficiently important.

Given that nowadays the Romanian form appears to be slightly more common than the English form of the name even in English, and given that even Britannica today spells him Alexandru Ion Cuza (note: "Ion", not "Ioan"), I think a Romanian form of the name would also be admissible. However, when two versions of a name are correct and there are no POV problems involved, then we generally preserve the original title. Hans Adler 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind and support now, see #Alexandru Ioan Cuza. On looking at the search results again, I am no longer sure what made me say that nowadays the Romanian form appears slightly more common only. It now appears to me that it's substantially more common. I just hope that this is not a function of the weekday when you use Google. Hans Adler 14:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I get 507 post-1980 English-language Google Book results for "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" and variations, minus "university" and "universitatea." This compares to 215 for "Alexander John Cuza" or "Alexander Cuza". Britannica`s "Alexandru Ion Cuza" is presumably a misspelling of "Alexandru Ioan Cuza". Kauffner (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, "Ion" is not a misprint, but a alternative - like "Iuan" to "Ewan". Dahn (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - 1. Romanian name is more used than the translated name. 2. For Romanians the name spelled in English is ridiculous. Do not add comments to my option. MJK50 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stricken out !vote by single purpose account. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saturnian does not understand what defamation is, and that it doesn't apply here. There are plenty of people whose names differ in different languages, (Charlemagne or Jesus Christ), and even within their usage in the same language (birth names of royalty, for example). I'll avoid places and things in this discussion. A reader in English is going to look for English, and can't even input most of the characters in other languages to search otherwise. We have titling policies and an MOS specific to English language WP, and those items must be adhered to. For example, a standard English keyboard can't input accents, and to take an example, I can't even spell Ceaucescu in Romanian if I wanted to. No Japanese, Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese, Russian, Greek, Thai, Arabic-speaking, or Korean person is ever listed in their native language on English WP because the characters can't be input directly. There is no need to make an exception for one language or one user, because it limits accessibility and usability of the encyclopedia. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand for common sense, respect for others and dignity. Hopefully I think others share the same values. This is the reason to let Alexandru Ioan Cuza to bear this own proper name. Saturnian (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The claim that it would be defamation and that it would deny Cuza's dignity shows who weird and ridiculous Romanian nationalism can get. There was a joke: "God, defend me from my friends, since my enemies I fear not." Such rudimentary claims project an image of dumbness and irrationality upon Romanian users. I am myself a Romanian and I have to distance myself from such awkward understanding of national pride: most educated Romanians are not like this. If "defamation" were a legal claim, no Romanian court would accept it, since the Romanian law limits such claims to living persons and, in case they are deceased, to their spouse and first degree relatives. It's an idle ambition of changing the title of the article, ambition born from xenophobic resentments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And, if I remember well, defamation is no longer prosecuted as a crime in Romania, since the High Court canceled its prosecution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wise words. But let me add: I don't think anyone actually took Saturnian's claim of defamation as an honest to God legal reference - it's simply ludicrous that anyone could actually conceive of this dispute here forming the grounds of a legal battle in real life. I'm saying that because, had this guy actually been perceived as handing out legal notices, he'd have been out of here, poll and all, in the first couple of minutes after stating it (in accordance with WP:NLT). Dahn (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

United Principalities

Dear followers, please give you vote also for Talk:United Principalities. -- Thanks, Saturnian (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For opposers

Please read the following text:

At "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University the students learn about Alexander John Cuza.

If you didn't laugh yet, please re-read the above sentence. :)) -- Saturnian (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I stsrted laughing when I read the move request. English does what English does; we are supposed to be written in English, not Romanian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, as "...supposed to be written in English", please change then Giorgio Napolitano to George Napolitano and Jacques Chirac to Jack Chirac. This is so funny :) Saturnian (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, for (like - I suspect - Alexandru Ioan Cuza University) Jacques Chirac is usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexander John Cuza University is a defamation of this University and also a defamation of the person, Alexandru Ioan Cuza. As Jacques Chirac is not written as Jack Chirac, then we should no try to invent names. Saturnian (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear closer, is this a legal threat? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is, then do you will change you mind?  :)) Saturnian (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is, I will act accordingly; please follow the link before answering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You didn't reply clearly to my question. Please do so first. Saturnian (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Puppets and canvass

Before we go on debating these issues, did anyone else notice that (in addition to his countless edits on all articles linking here), Saturnian has already canvassed the vote ([7], [8], [9], [10] etc.) and there are is at least one seemingly single-purpose account voting here and on his poll ([11])?

I find it hard to even discuss things over when that is the benchmark, let alone when this user repeatedly trolls by implying I'm anti-Romanian ([12], [13]). Admins out there? Dahn (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, the user Saturnian has made enough WP:NPA against you and other users for a warning to be issued, I'm not quite sure how to go about that, perhaps it has to be taken by a 3rd party to WP:ANI. On the bigger issue, as far as Admin help, or advice on how to attract 3rd party editors to keep "special interest" pages following WP:MOS, then probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the place to ask. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Dahn attacked me saying "don't you have anything better to do?" on Alexandru Macedonski article. Already I warned him "... your behavior, including personal attacks (like "don't you have anything better to do?"), is not a proper one. Thus, if you will continue, I will report you seriously". Do not try to distort the facts. Saturnian (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No facts distorted, Saturnian. I have already invited you to "report me seriously", as soon as possible, and let them know how that's a personal attack etc. You would in fact be sparing me the trouble of having to file a complaint on you (wikidrama and the sheer templates are such awful bores). Once you do that for me, we can discuss in one place what you consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behavior on wikipedia. I certainly don't need your bogus, bombastic, poisoning-the-well, self-referencing, pidgin warnings in the meantime - I warmly, calmly, gently invite you to file your complaint as soon as possible, and I'll be sure to expose myself to such scrutiny at a venue of your choosing. I have to be off soon, but if you do it by, say, later today, it'd be just peachy for me. Make sure you leave a tag informing me of the discussion, and I'll be sure to reply. Dahn (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just irony which is not useful. The issue is about common sense, respect for others and dignity is not helpful. Until now, you did not argue why such values should not be applied to Alexandru Ioan Cuza and why he is punished to bear a such name. I stand for common sense, respect for others and dignity and hopefully I think others share the same values. Saturnian (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(It's not irony, man: go do it. If you're vexed, seek your resolution.) I think I have repeatedly argued as to why this name is not exactly an abomination, for instance by pointing you to the sheer fact, the basic knowledge fact, the self-evident fact, that, in Romania, the names of ruling monarchs, not to mention regular historical figures, are Romanianized as such: Elisabeth -> Elisabeta, Pedro -> Petru, Piotr -> Petru, John -> Ioan, Alexander -> Alexandru, Giorgios -> Gheorghe etc. Do you understand this when I mention it the third time around, or is the English I'm using still too complicated and I need to literally draw you a picture? (As for the other issues: I know appeals to emotion work on the average overheated Romanian troll, but you're already embarrassing yourself and everyone else here with the "punishment", "dignity" etc. demagoguery. Really, the point for moving this article is not inarticulate, but you are effectively driving it into the ground with the drama and the mudslinging and the canvassing and the general obnoxiousness.) Dahn (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, this same naming issue has occurred on Cuza's entry on List of Freemasons, also made by Saturnian, and the same title argument (English usage) was made by several others. MSJapan (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to explain why Alexandru Ioan Cuza is punished to bear denigrating name. You did not replay until now. This issue is about common sense, respect for others and dignity and nothing else. Saturnian (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can you please step back and take a break from all this scandal. It is not helping anyone. I understand that you can give a hard time to Saturnian based on Wikipedia policies, but he made a huge set of contributions on both Romanian and English WP around ancient history, particularly Roman Castra documentation. Look at all this tremendous work and give the guy a break. Ultimately Ioan or John are same thing...--Codrin.B (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good cop-bad cop, Codrinb? Dahn (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ale[c]sandru", if we're splitting hairs

Since there is no limit to the sort of half-truths that Saturnian is spreading about Cuza's "real name", let's note the following tidbits (which, of course, are entirely new to Saturnian, who only cares about rhetoric, and the other obscurantists de jour): to people in his generation, Cuza was never known as "Alexandru Ioan Cuza". "X" itself is a brand new letter in the Romanian alphabet, and the Romanian alphabet itself was only adopted in Cuza's reign.

You'll find that they spelled his name Alesandru Cuza here, page 215, right column), Alessandru Ioan (here, page 24), Alecsandru Cuza (here, page 466) or other such variations. The half-baked purist defense above, which claims to represent how Cuza wanted to spell his name, is twice ridiculous: Cuza never saw his name spelled "Alexandru". So let's cut through the hybris: if it's a crime against his dignity to call him "Alexander John", it's only as much as calling him "Alexandru Ioan". That "dignity" defense is horseshit.

(Incidentally, a fully developed version of this article will need to mention Cuza's name in the transitional version of Romanian Cyrillic.) Dahn (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Below, I'm reserving some room for Saturnian to call me anti-Romanian for actually knowing what it is I'm talking about. Go ahead. Dahn (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is funny :)) Why you are not more tolerant? Saturnian (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Of ignorance? Because I'm not ignorant. Dahn (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. Let's check that. If I could prove that you are ignorant, do you will support me from now on? Saturnian (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I never did support the move, son. Have a second look. What I a saying, and have said all along, is that I want to see ample reference, and assessment of evidence, as to why this page should be moved - it is personally irrelevant to me whether this page carries this name of the other; I'm resistant to whimsical changes, for practical reasons, and I am disgusted by you insidious editing of this and other articles, your canvassing, and your single-purpose sockpuppetry. But if clear-cut arguments and consensus for the change emerge, I will not oppose it. What I will invariably oppose is sciolism. Dahn (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your answer is for a question I never asked. I ask again: If I could prove that you are ignorant, do you will support me from now on? (Yes/No) Saturnian (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Get someone to teach you better etiquette - these are not grown-up questions to ask, Saturnian. Dahn (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See you avoided the answer meaning you have doubts about your ignorance. I hoped we will cooperate, so disappointing. Saturnian (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not answered your question because it is childish and inflammatory, like most of the things you have posted on this here page. If there's anything you can say that is of substance, concerning the usage of the name, let's hear it. Btw, perhaps you can tell me if you can read the spelling used by the man in his own signature: File:Signature of Alexandru Ioan Cuza.png. Tolle, lege. Dahn (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We could solved easily the dispute. I see the signature of this man of state written in Romanian; thanks for evidence. Saturnian (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Then presumably you also see how it is spelled "Alecsandru". As for the rest: I see you still didn't understand that part where I tell you that, even in Romanian, the name of ruling monarchs tends to be translated. Otherwise, maybe you can aslo note how the woman known in Romania as Elisabeta II likes to sign her own name. Ask a grown-up to explain, if you're still having difficulties grasping this analogy. Dahn (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You're still having difficulties grasping the difference between Alexander John Cuza and Michael I of Romania. I you admit translation of names, until now you were not able to change the Giorgio Napolitano to George Napolitano and Jacques Chirac to Jack Chirac. This paradox means that the reasoning mechanism you use is flawed. Saturnian (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The paradox only exists in your mind, Saturnian. Both Michael and Cuza were monarchs, in continuity to each other in fact (through Carol - who, btw, is "Karl"!). The sickeningly repetitious reference to Napoletano and Chirac is an ignoratio elenchi, yours: Cuza was not president, under any definition. Seriously, get yourself a history book. Dahn (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI

It probably needs noting that this is subject of a note on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cuza_edit_warring. NB Saturnian, please see also WP:3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How to do simple searches on Google Scholar

I'll repost these links, as they may help, for example anyone before mentioning "Jack Chirac" again, please click on these links and then try "Jack Chirac"....

• "Alexander John Cuza"
• "Alexandru Ioan Cuza".

That is 1950-2011 in Google Scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The first one leans heavily towards the University, but is very short on hits. The latter leans heavily towards non-English sources (interestingly enough), and I think it wise to indicate that even the university appears with both "Ioan" and "John" spellings (it's in both sets of listings). I believe it wise to rerun those listings omitting the "University" term and focusing on the person, as I believe the latter are hits on material by students at the university, and thus a derivative of what it attempting to be illustrated. MSJapan (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan, yes, for those who are familiar with the tool that would be a better search, but the simple search shows exactly what you've said above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Given Saturnian's repeated failure to understand that there is grounds for translating royals' names into a target language (something that is done in Romanian as well, as I have shown), and the fact that his obnoxiously restated analogy is with republican heads of state, it is becoming quite clear that Saturnian simply believes that Cuza was a sort of president of Romania. And, with that, we have established the relevancy of his opinions.

There may be grounds for moving the article, for all we know, and other arguments stated in the poll may carry lots more weight than the "Jack Chirac" inanity, but whatever Saturnian did on the basis of that awful and sciolistic rationale counts as highly disruptive. And I'm not at all impressed by the claim that he should be left to his devices just because (Codrinb tells us) he once did some repetitious task for googlemaps. In fact, there may be grounds for analyzing the validity of this guy's entire wikipedia activity - if he can be this wrong about an issue, and if he will defend absurdities with as virulent entrenchment, I cannot help but wonder what he has done to other articles. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your discourse is highly over-exaggerated, provocative, uncooperative, intended to denigrate; just for the stubborn ambition to keep Cuza to bear a cowboy like name. I think this behavior is not a proper one for Wikipedia. Saturnian (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexandru Ioan Cuza

The statement that only Romanian and English sources are using the Romanian name Alexandru Ioan Cuza is not correct. There are Italian, French, German and Spanich sources using Alexandru Ioan Cuza

1. Encyclopedia of world constitutions by Gerhard Robbers – 2007
2. The Encyclopedia Americana Grolier, 1985
3. Encyclopedia Americana , Volume 30 Scholastic Library Pub., 2006
4. Historical abstracts: Modern history abstracts, 1450-1914, Volume 47, by American Bibliographical Center, Eric H. Boehm 1996
5. The Balkans: a post-communist history By Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries
6. Die Hohenzollern in Rumänien: 1866 - 1947 ; eine monarchische ...by Gunter Klein edited by Edda Binder-Iijima
7. Romania in Pictures by Ann Kerns 2006 Romania Mark Sanborne - 2004 -
8. Myth, identity and conflict: A comparative analysis of Romanian and Serbian ... By Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, University of Maryland, College Park. Government and Politics By Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, University of Maryland, College Park. Government and Politics
9. Romanian politics, 1859-1871: from Prince Cuza to Prince Carol by Paul E. Michelson
10. Frommer's Eastern Europe By Mark Baker, Keith Bain, Angela Charlton, Heather Coombs, Pippa de Bruyn
11. Romania A Country Study 2004 By Federal Research Division
12. Romania: the unfinished revolution By Steven D. Roper
13. Balkan identities: nation and memory by David Nikolaeva Sciulli, Maria Todorova and Walt Whitman 2003
14. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire By Gábor Ágoston, Bruce Alan Masters 2009
15. Cahiers d'études romanes Issue 14, Parts 1-2 Institut des langues, littératures et civilisations romanes et d'Amérique Latine, Université de Provence., 2005
16. Collier's encyclopedia: with bibliography and index Lauren S. Bahr, Bernard Johnston (M.A.), Louise A. Bloomfield - 1996
17. Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia Jeffrey Cole 2011
18. Donaukreuzfahrt By Hinnerk Dreppenstedt 2011
19. Factors of Social and Economic Rural Development: A Case Study of the … By Paulin Giurgi
20. Romania - Culture Smart!: The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture By Debbie Stowe 2010
21. República de las letras: órgano de la Asociación Colegial de Escritores de España, Issues 86-87 2004 –Law (Spanish)
22. Guia Del Mundo 2008/ Guide to the World 2008 By Instituto Del Tercer Mundo (COR) (Italian)
23. Balkan studies: biannual publication of the Institute for Balkan Studies, Volume 10 Hidryma Meletōn Chersonēsou tou Haimou (Thessalonikē, Greece)

Changing the Romanian name Alexandru Ioan Cuza to a form Alexander John Cuza is found mostly in wikipedia sources but also few other

It would be also strange to change the followings

• Ioan Evans
• Ioan Gruffudd
• Ioan Manu (19th century)
• Ioan Sterca-Şuluţiu
• Ioan al IV-lea Potcoavă
• Ioan Petru Culianu or Couliano

I hope it helpsBoldwin (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I added three English sources for "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" to eliminate the POV-pushing and unfactual dichotomy suggesting that "Alexander John Cuza" is the "English name" (see also the arguments of the opposers - overwhelmingly red herrings and non sequiturs). I agree "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" is an "international name", however the English sources are those that matter. It's a pity Saturnian tainted the vote with his maneuvers, now there's a lot of WP:GAME going on. Daizus (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, yet again I must ask you to relax. If anything, the fact that the Romanian name is also used in English sources does not make the "Alexander John" variant a less English version - since it is the anglicized one. Whether those supporting the preservation of anglicizations where they already exist are right to do so is up for debate, but to suggest that their argument is a "red herring" and a "non sequitur", and to imply a POV agenda, is frankly a pot and kettle issue. You suggest that the others have a pre-determined POV on the matter, because, of course, keeping the title under its first name is something worth conspiring on in the name of a larger principle (namely?), as opposed to the above inanities about moving it to another title because of "dignity", "human rights" etc. - which quite clearly spell out someone's POV, whether or not you personally agree with that said POV. And let me add: to just pick up random sources about the name (i. e. about a debate on the talk page) and use them for a half-assed referencing of an unreferenced article is a very poor editing practice. It basically says: "I have peeked through fragments of these two books and exclusively used them to shut up those who disagree with me on the talk page." I won't revert you, but you know that, like Saturnian's edits, these have added nothing of quality or significance to the article. A future overhaul of the article, which I hope to be part of, is going to have to be based on better research, whatever title is eventually adopted. Dahn (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And Boldwin, I have no idea what your list of titles adds to this article: that he is referred to as "Alexandru etc." in languages other than English and Romanian is just as true as it is irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, I mean. (Also, at the risk of being pedantic: "English sources" also means texts by authors of whatever nationality, but written in English or cited in their English translation. Most of the sources you cite as non-English are in fact English under one of the those two criteria.) Dahn (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost of personal animosity. Unhelpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't care about your fallacies and your verbose but empty rhetoric, Dahn. The title should be moved because the majority of English sources have "Alexandru Ioan Cuza", not "Alexander John Cuza". Adding sourced content is a very good editing practice. Balancing POVs is a also a very good editing practice. Read WP:TITLE. And then read it again.Daizus (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You see, here is the behavioral issue I was talking about: why would you even think it's necessary to (yet again) harangue me, particularly so when I have repeatedly stated that I do not oppose the move? Adding sourced content excludes WP:SYNTH - you used sources to cite an argument not explicitly made by the sources (i. e. "this is the English name of Cuza"); as to why this is also bad stylistic practice, I refer you again to my previous comment, which I encourage you to actually read. And then read it again. As for WP:TITLE and the POV issue, I must ask you again to explain how an article that was named as such from its inception (when I do believe it was named on the basis of its corresponding Britannica 1911 article) can reflect "a POV" with its title, and how come the anglicized title can also be "non-English"? It may be antiquated, it may be weird, it may be unnatural, but POV and non-English it is not. Do you see the point I'm making, or is this the part of the post you never actually read (as "fallacies and verbose but empty rhetoric")? It would be a shame if it were so, because I would be very interested to know how campaigning for the move on grounds of "human dignity etc." (that is to say, a POV) has somehow been equivocated with the status quo that we all took in for a fact, and that nobody has actually been able to integrate with any sort of agenda. Or should I simply dismiss that as a fallacy and disregard your comments altogether? Dahn (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, one by one: I haven't "harangued you", you jumped on me (also with ad hominems). I also haven't suggested any connection between you and the opposers. Dacă te simţi cu musca pe căciulă ... My edit is not WP:SYNTH. Original research doesn't apply to obvious things (like 1+1=2 or acknowledging a text is written in English and not in another language). This argument of yours is actually a straw man, because my edit is not "this is the English name of Cuza", but "Alexandru Ioan Cuza [...] in English sources". What part of "used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources" do you not understand? Using a name that is "antiquated" or "unnatural" is definitely a POV. But this is also a straw man, because in the article I addressed the claim that "Alexander John Cuza" is the name used in English sources (and no other), a POV-pushing dichotomy to justify the current title. I fail to see what "human dignity" has to do with our conversation or even with this topic. If this is not a red herring, then what is it? As I told you already, I don't care about sophistry, thus I see no reason to re-read your inane digressions. Suggesting I "never actually read" them, it is another fallacy. Your crystal ball is hazy, so stop guessing and stick to the facts. I couldn't care less if you read what I write or if you reply to what I write. Frankly I prefer you not to, because so far this discussion is a waste of time. Daizus (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things, simply because you read a lot in my posts that is not actually in there, and I can only reasonably assume you don't actually read them. Hence my advice to relax, and my other advice to re-read them. You yourself tell me, in quite annoying terms, that you take no interest in reading the arguments I make, but that you care enough to label them. Before anything else, how civilized is that, Daizus? There is not one a hominem to be found in any of my replies to you. What I have said, repeatedly, is that, whatever this issue is, it would be a leap of faith to describe it as a POV one, since you, just like anyone else around here, would be unable to even describe what agenda is involved in writing the man's name as "Alexander John" - whereas the agenda of those who have proposed (proposed, Daizus, not voted on) the move is quite apparent. It doesn't follow that you would have a POV in proposing the move, just that calling the opposite a POV is, ironically, a red herring. Sorry to put you through all this, at the risk that you'll be calling it "empty rhetoric", but intelligent arguments are usually complex, and require some good faith from the addressee. Your edit is SYNTH insofar as the sources do not say anything explicit about the name. That is a secondary issue, however, as the one thing I expect you to understand is that careless referencing of this sort, airing debates on the talk page as opposed to the article's interests, is simply not worth preserving in future, more developed, versions of the article. For stylistic reasons. And another shorter, easy to follow, sentence: not that this means you're not right (or wrong) to suggest that the name is "most English" or whatever. Not that the name of this article should (or shouldn't) be "Alexandru Ioan Cuza". Just that this is callous referencing, that one would not expect to find in a fully developed article, and that is actually meaningless insofar as those sources are only used to state a non-explicit argument about the name. Were you take the article through, say, the GA process with that kind of edits still in, the issue would and should come up again. If you still struggle with the point I'm making, don't just dismiss it as empty rhetoric, but ask other editors to explain more about SYNTH and style. While in one section you claim I have not been misunderstood when I stated clearly that I do not oppose the move, here again you treat me as if I were your "Oppose" straw man. It is not an issue of not understanding, it is an issue of not caring: the users you rant against have expressed an opinion that is also based on (their interpretation of) wikipedia policies; to claim that they should heed this policy and your reading of it is, again, moving the goalposts. And no, using a name that may be (not is) antiquated is not in itself POV, and the entire claim that it is POV is so far ludicrous and counterfactual: there is absolutely no conceivable reason why someone would endorse this title because is is antiquated; as noted from the "Oppose" votes above, people support it because they think it best reflects English practice - they may be wrong, but they're not following a pro-"antiquated" agenda. The rest is really your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one. Of course one would fail to see the point of an argument when they split that point. Here's the basic idea, again: we're sitting here discussing the proposal to move an article to a new title because, we're told, there was something morally wrong with the previous one. That rationale, which I never said was your (Daizus') rationale, is a POV one. The rationale to oppose the move is complex, but even if it were reduced to the "not buying it" defense, it would still be more valid when compared with that POV. Whether or not you are right about what policies we should follow, how they reflect on this article, what most sources do etc., you are dead wrong about calling those who oppose the move POV-pushers. It's simple, really, but you have to want to pay attention. These are the facts I am sticking to. Your accumulation of smokescreens that claim to reference documented fallacies is, ironically enough, proof by verbosity. While your "I'm not gonna read it" disclaimer is poisoning the well. And the reference to the "crystal ball" is ridiculous, as I don't believe I have yet predicted anything, rightly or wrongly. And the only chance of me not replying when you confront readers with this showmanship is if... let's just say it's going to happen for as long as I feel like it, regardless of your immature attempts to bully me - if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't. Dahn (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things, simply because you read a lot in my posts that is not actually in there, and I can only reasonably assume you don't actually read them. Hence my advice to relax, and my other advice to re-read them. You yourself tell me, in quite annoying terms, that you take no interest in reading the arguments I make, but that you care enough to label them. Before anything else, how civilized is that, Daizus? I am quite sure I don't "fail to see a lot of things" just because a misguided editor wishes me to do it. And even if you're an attention whore, please use your intelligence to understand I won't re-read unnecessarily. Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) There is not one a hominem to be found in any of my replies to you. What I have said, repeatedly, is that, whatever this issue is, it would be a leap of faith to describe it as a POV one, since you, just like anyone else around here, would be unable to even describe what agenda is involved in writing the man's name as "Alexander John" - whereas the agenda of those who have proposed (proposed, Daizus, not voted on) the move is quite apparent. It doesn't follow that you would have a POV in proposing the move, just that calling the opposite a POV is, ironically, a red herring. Sorry to put you through all this, at the risk that you'll be calling it "empty rhetoric", but intelligent arguments are usually complex, and require some good faith from the addressee. Few obvious ad hominems (actually replies like this one are entirely ad hominem since they rather concern my person, my beliefs, my reasons to defend a position or to forward an argument): "a very poor editing practice. It basically says: 'I have peeked through fragments of these two books and exclusively used them to shut up those who disagree with me on the talk page.'", " you even think it's necessary to (yet again) harangue me", "the part of the post you never actually read ", "Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things" - as opposed to "you miss my point", "you still struggle with the point I'm making", "your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one", "your immature attempts to bully me", "if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't.") Incivility is an euphemism for this amount of venom (and lack of good faith, since you mentioned it). Your "POV rhetoric" is a straw man, as explained in my previous reply. Topics may be complex, but intelligent arguments are usually simple. Confused arguments (sometimes also intellectually dishonest) may also be complex. Affirming the consequent is also a form of non sequitur. Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Your edit is SYNTH insofar as the sources do not say anything explicit about the name. That is a secondary issue, however, as the one thing I expect you to understand is that careless referencing of this sort, airing debates on the talk page as opposed to the article's interests, is simply not worth preserving in future, more developed, versions of the article. For stylistic reasons. And another shorter, easy to follow, sentence: not that this means you're not right (or wrong) to suggest that the name is "most English" or whatever. Not that the name of this article should (or shouldn't) be "Alexandru Ioan Cuza". Just that this is callous referencing, that one would not expect to find in a fully developed article, and that is actually meaningless insofar as those sources are only used to state a non-explicit argument about the name. Were you take the article through, say, the GA process with that kind of edits still in, the issue would and should come up again. If you still struggle with the point I'm making, don't just dismiss it as empty rhetoric, but ask other editors to explain more about SYNTH and style. You're attacking the same straw man. (how have I suggested the "most English" name with my edit?) Thus I don't think I need to be explained what SYNTH is. With a grain of malice, I remind you last time we crossed swords you defended plagiarism (accusing me of making "frivolous claims"), and other editors eventually proved me right. Then as now, you failed to read and understand the policies and carefully read the edits we debated. Then as now, I trust my capacity of doing these. Then as now, I think you should note WP:COMPETENCE. Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) While in one section you claim I have not been misunderstood when I stated clearly that I do not oppose the move, here again you treat me as if I were your "Oppose" straw man. It is not an issue of not understanding, it is an issue of not caring: the users you rant against have expressed an opinion that is also based on (their interpretation of) wikipedia policies; to claim that they should heed this policy and your reading of it is, again, moving the goalposts. And no, using a name that may be (not is) antiquated is not in itself POV, and the entire claim that it is POV is so far ludicrous and counterfactual: there is absolutely no conceivable reason why someone would endorse this title because is is antiquated; as noted from the "Oppose" votes above, people support it because they think it best reflects English practice - they may be wrong, but they're not following a pro-"antiquated" agenda. The rest is really your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one. I don't care about your fantasies of how I treat you. The users "I rant against" expressed an opinion and they adduced some arguments. Those arguments are fallacious. Also your failure to understand Wikipedia neutrality policies dosen't make my claims ludicrous and counterfactual. You seem to be confused about what neutrality is (and the lack of it). A POV content or title doesn't necessarily reflect an agenda. A NPOV content or title is a fair reflection of the available reliable (English here) sources. An antiquated name is thus POV, unless you propose to write an encyclopaedia for a 19th/early 20th century audience. As for your inept and hateful addition about my "tribute to Romanian paranoia", I am not sure if it deserves a comment or a report. Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Of course one would fail to see the point of an argument when they split that point. Here's the basic idea, again: we're sitting here discussing the proposal to move an article to a new title because, we're told, there was something morally wrong with the previous one. That rationale, which I never said was your (Daizus') rationale, is a POV one. The rationale to oppose the move is complex, but even if it were reduced to the "not buying it" defense, it would still be more valid when compared with that POV. Whether or not you are right about what policies we should follow, how they reflect on this article, what most sources do etc., you are dead wrong about calling those who oppose the move POV-pushers. It's simple, really, but you have to want to pay attention. You miss the point with your WP:GAME. The question ("the basic idea") is very simple: what should be the title of this article, considering the "significant majority of reliable English language sources"? Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) These are the facts I am sticking to. Your accumulation of smokescreens that claim to reference documented fallacies is, ironically enough, proof by verbosity. While your "I'm not gonna read it" disclaimer is poisoning the well. And the reference to the "crystal ball" is ridiculous, as I don't believe I have yet predicted anything, rightly or wrongly. And the only chance of me not replying when you confront readers with this showmanship is if... let's just say it's going to happen for as long as I feel like it, regardless of your immature attempts to bully me - if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't. What facts? You seem very eager to guess many things about me, and you fail each time. Hopefully this buffoonery of yours reflects lack of good faith, as the alternative is not at all flattering. Daizus (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) At this point, and since you again cite (willy-nilly) WP:COMPETENCE, I would like to point out two relevant part of that essay. You will find them under "Social incompetence" and "Grudges". Those are the only two reasons I can picture why you, Daizus, would continue to misrepresent and rant against my arguments which suck cockamamie travesties, manipulative rhetoric and (so very) self-important slogans. Really, these might (still) work on the WikiProject Dacia jungle, but I hoped you would instinctively adhere to a more sanitary system of reference in the out-of-universe world. Now I know for sure that is too much to expect. Incidentally, I will repeat openly the claim that your rationale above justifies esoteric and paranoid claims, and you add to that when you grossly misrepresent our past encounters; when you claim (in bad taste) that I "defend plagiarism", what you should mean, were you not merely chasing straw men, is that I asked for definitive proof of plagiarism before you decided to attack another user on such grounds. The very fact that you go for "whoever is not with me is against me" is proof enough of that stuff I said about WP:COMPETENCE. Au revoir, Dahn (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You were the one grudgingly pointing out that "I am not always right" (it hurts your ego?). You're the talk page troll guard assaulting the editors who support "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" (for a change see my discussion below with Hans Adler - that is collaboration and it's on topic!). Or from a different perspective: many editors are trying to discuss about Cuza, you rather prefer to argue about the editors and their intentions. As for us :), I have not distorted our past, your selective memory has: "prima facie, the claim of plagiarism seems frivolous. The quotes you mention are not that similar (just how many ways can someone cite anything that precise in that affixed a jargon?)" Actually it was not about jargon, and the quotes I mentioned were that similar. Anyway my point is: I read carefully and if anything is frivolous is your suggestion that I don't. Our past encounters should be enough for you to show some good faith. Daizus (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Most of your posts is a string of childish insinuations, but again, one would have to step out of character to actually regard the other side with good faith. As per WP:COMPETENCE, this is too much to expect in your case: you think of this as "crossing swords", which can only earn you "points" in discussions with some handpicked trolls. The only part of your post that I still consider relevant, simply because it is an outright lie, and needs to be addressed as such, is the one where you claim I assaulted oppose support votes. What I did is that I pointed out Saturnian was being absurd, Codrinb was being manipulative, and some of the edits were socks. In other words, as Hans Adler noted, I reduced the "oppose" "support" vote to its reasonable arguments, not necessarily because I intended, but because the alternative is disgusting. Much like your solipsistic machismo above. Dahn (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You can insult me all the way you want - it says more about you than it says about me (btw, you should check what machismo actually means; and also crossing swords). I have not claimed "you assaulted 'oppose' votes" (do you even know what's this vote about?) and you jumped on me, CodrinB and Saturnian (and perhaps Boldwin, but one can argue your reply was only dismissive). And yes, all these editors support "Alexandru Ioan Cuza", so my claim is not a lie. However your claim is untrue. Daizus (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Obviously, I meant "support" votes; the very fact that your argument relies on that taunt is part of the behavioral problem I referred to. As for the substance of your argument, if you claim you don't need to be told twice, and actually read my posts, then your problem with understanding my previous ("What I did is that I pointed out Saturnian was being absurd, Codrinb was being manipulative, and some of the edits were socks") must be elsewhere, somewhere deeper in your ego, and beyond my powers to address. Here it is again in short, for anyone who doesn't have that issue to deal with: you equivocate me telling users they are wrong, and actually showing how they are wrong, with "assaults"; you implicitly defend the stupefying claims that the anglicization hurts Cuza's dignity (Saturnian), or the manipulative claim that the name we use is against WP:UE (Codrinb); as for Boldwin, what I have said is that the argument is irrelevant, because it is - in fact, it is self-contradictory. Enough, really, you're embarrassing yourself with anyone but the WikiProject Dacia mob, and their approval is not something to look forward to. Dahn (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC) My argument relies on no taunts, but on facts. That mention is symptomatic for how you rush here to shut me up, symptomatic for how little you care about the actual topic and facts, symptomatic for your straw men techniques (I haven't claimed "you assaulted 'support' votes" either). Even if you believe you're justified in doing so, you have no excuse to make gross personal attacks (e.g. until proven to be so, CodrinB is manipulative only in your imagination: he expressed his opinions just like everyone else) and I see no problem in equating these with assaults (mildly put, IMO). I have not defended claims such as "anglicization hurts Cuza's dignity" and I repeatedly dismissed them as red herrings (your reading issues are not my problem). As for the rest of your stereotype-based ad hominems and rants, I just let them be. Just be warned I'm one inch away of reporting this burst of invectives to an appropriate forum. Daizus (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Go ahead and "report me". And yet more samples of your bad-faith mockery of my posts: Codrinb is not manipulative, his message is - simply because WP:UE says shit-all on this topic, and quite contrarily recommends anglicizations were they are attested; such opinions can be freely expressed, but they're still factually wrong; if you don't defend claims that anglicizations are against Cuza's dignity, then your invoking of how I "assault" Saturnian for having debunked that claim of his is purely rhetorical and inflammatory hogwash; that I rushed in here to "shut you up" is also hogwash, and comes from the same solitary dungeon of your imagination - what I have done is pointed out that you are simply mudslinging with your blanket claims about how all oppose votes are "red herrings" (without ever mentioning against whom those red herrings are used) or are secretly motivated by some obscure preference (that you can't name, but know is in there) or even tat they have the same attitude in common. Oh, and now I'm supposed to be watching on as you claim not to have used "assaulted" in describing my actions? Really? And this while making some point about how a minor and formal problem with my post invalidates my entire argument? At long last, do you even take yourself seriously anymore? Dahn (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, may I remind you that WP is not FORUM? Please resolve your personal differences on your user talk pages, or use some form of dispute resolution if you are unable to manage.Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to engage in a proper discussion, but you are still somewhat missing the point. Here is an explanation of the situation from my point of view:

(1) Historically, practically all languages have adapted or 'translated' foreign most if not all names according to their own rules instead of just using the original form. Basically, this phenomenon is an honour, not an insult. Many of the most important historical personalities are still known under slightly different versions of their names in different countries, but only if they are kings or high nobility. For the others, these localised names were lost, and nowadays we use their original names. One example of how this old usage has survived: William the Conqueror / Wilhelm der Eroberer (German) / Guillaume le Conquérant (French) / Guglielmo il Conquistatore (Italian) / William Cuceritorul (Romanian). Another interesting example is Johann Sebastian Bach. His original, German name is used everywhere except in French. The French speakers call him Jean Sébastien Bach. Again, this is an honour. His father and his three sons were all well known composers, but all of them are referred to by their original, German names even in French because they are not as important as the one great Bach.

We even do this for some modern monarchs: Elizabeth II / Elisabeth II. / Élisabeth II / Elisabetta II / Isabel II / Elisabeta a II-a / II. Erzsébet / Elżbieta II.

(2) Translating names in this way is getting more and more obsolete. Nowadays we do it almost never, except sometimes when a person moves from one country to another. This is a good thing because it makes things simpler for people who speak more than one language, and because nowadays we have to do with so many different languages and cultures that we can't treat even the most important names in this way anyway. What should we do about the first name "Barack", for example? It's not even an English name although Obama is American, and there are no equivalent French, German, Italian, Romanian etc. names. However, linguistic change is slow. When a localised name is well established, then it takes many years or even centuries for it to change.

(3) Here you can see the signature of Cuza. I find it hard to read, but I think it says "Alecsandru Ioan". It is very obvious that there is no x in the signature, so even the modern Romanian name is not exactly the form of his name that he used himself.

(4) We are trying to find out what the correct form of his name is in English. If there were no sources about him in English, then we would have to use sources in other languages. If many sources had a Romanian form of his name but with diacritics stripped, then we could use Romanian sources to decide whether forms that appear in English and have diacritics are more correct. Fortunately there are no diacritics in any of his Romanian names, so we don't have this problem either. Therefore we only need to look at sources in English. Other sources are not helpful.

(5) Old sources in English call him "Alexander John Cuza". Most modern sources, but not all, call him "Alexandru Io[a]n Cuza". In particular, Britannica called him "Alexander John" in 1911 and calls him "Alexandru Ion" today. It follows that there are two correct ways of referring to him in English: an old-fashioned one and a modern one. Currently we are using the old-fashioned one. I think the modern version is slightly better, but not better enough to be worth renaming the article. Maybe I would have thought otherwise if there weren't so many silly arguments for renaming the article on this page. Britannica has already renamed him from the genuinely English form of his name to the Romanian one. It is not unreasonable that we do so as well, and you have a chance to convince other editors that this is the right thing to do, if you address the real problem and don't get distracted by books in other languages or accusations of anti-Romanian sentiments. Hans Adler 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Another of the many ways in which Romanian wikipedia has decided to aggravate me is by keeping William the Conqueror under "William I al Angliei" or "William Cuceritorul", when in fact the well-established use is "Wilhelm Cuceritorul" (not even "Wilhelm I al Angliei"). :) Dahn (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Most old sources call him "Alexander John Cuza" (other less frequent variants are "Alexander Joan Cuza", "Alexandru Joan Cuza", etc). Be it as it may, his name in old sources is irrelevant, because we live in the 21st century, not in the 19th. "Maybe I would have thought otherwise if there weren't so many silly arguments for renaming the article on this page" is also irrelevant.

Dahn, this is exactly why the "arguments of the opposers are red herrings and non sequiturs". Show me one of them who argued "Alexander John Cuza" is the name "used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources". Daizus (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, just because (and even if) they do not reflect whatever part of a policy you think should be taken into account here, it doesn't follow that what they're saying is either a red herring or a non sequitur. If you want to cite fallacies, I think your very argument goes for the goalposts. Dahn (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the name used by at least half the reliable English language sources because most of them are relative old. Once a name exists in two variants that are more or less equivalent, the article stays wherever it is. See WP:ENGVAR for the underlying principle as applied to differences between American and British English, for example.

However, given that the anglicised form does appear to be obsolete (I just checked again and found that there are not many recent sources calling him Alexander John, and that among these many omitted the second name, were conspiracy theorist, or otherwise suggested low editorial quality), I now think that the names are not roughly equivalent and the article should be moved, after all – especially if we take into account that Britannica has already made this move (although bizarrely using Ion rather than Ioan, which I guess is not what we want here).

I mentioned the silly arguments only to help you. Most arguments so far for the move made only very superficial sense and were really nothing but appeals to nationalist emotions. You can't expect this to work in an English-language international project. Hans Adler 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the "at least half" part, since all the Google searches conducted so far indicated the prevalance of "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" (e.g. 1390 hits vs 515; 1290 vs 303, etc). I know such methods are not rigurous and there are also irrelevant hits, however it's a significant majority. Daizus (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say, these searches are not a rigorous tool. I tried to account for complicating factors that I think inflate the Alexandru search results in relation to the Alexander search results: a bias against pre-digitisation travel guides, and the fact that English sources on discussing Cuza are more likely to cite Romanian sources that mention him than the other way round. But maybe you are right and Alexandru is twice as common as Alexander in English sources, even over all periods. IMO that would still not be reason enough for such a move, although it would be getting borderline. But if we look just at sources from the last 50 years or so, as we should, then the picture is much clearer anyway, which is why I changed my mind. Hans Adler 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This may help in assessing historical and current use: Google Ngram. Note that post-1948 results probably include the name of the University.Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coup d'état

I correct hereafter the paragraph of the article on Cuza's reforms.

At May 2nd 1864, facing the oposition of the parliament against the agrarian reform by distribution of land to peasants, Cuza disolved the parliament and modified the provisions of the Treaty of Paris by plebiscit, assuming greater powers for himself and enlarging the right to vote. This is the first coup d'état of a series of 14 in the history of modern Romania, most of them without violence. Romania was spared by a foreign military intervention (envisioned by Russia, Austria and Turkey) by the support of France and its allies. In order to rule without parliament, Cuza has bring to power a camarila of corrupt businessmen which received in exchange contracts with the state. Having no political opposition Cuza started his most radical reforms.

Regnal number/name?

Was he officially as Prince of Romania 'Alexandru Ioan', 'Alexandru Ioan Cuza' or 'Alexandru Ioan I'? Did he have a regnal number, like his successor, Carol I, did as Prince, and did he use his surname as part of his regnal name?92.3.159.49 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexandru Ioan Cuza. 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/20070211010736/http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/cuza.htm to http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ac/cuza.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)