Talk:Synod of Jassy

Council of Iași

Rgvis, to what else does this term refer to? Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Usually, the County or Local Council. (Rgvis (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC))

Well, "Council of Jassy" would mean the same thing only with the outdated name. Anyway, nothing would happen if both names coincide. The primary topic would still be the County Council building. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia uses the names of events, as they are most commonly known in English (and found in reliable sources) (as per WP:NC). These known historically names should not be considered as pure translations from other languages. For example, that's why we say Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, and not Iași–Chișinău Offensive. (Rgvis (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC))

Requested move 21 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Synod of Iași → Synod of Jassy – Most common name of the event. Veverve (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose synod was at Iași "Jassy" is archaic. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with editor above. There's no reason to use "Jassy" over "Iași". Super Ψ Dro 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree based on “Synod of Jassy” giving several thousand more Google search results than “Synod of Iași”. The modern name is not necessarily relevant in a historical context. The established Russian name, which is not by any means archaic other than in the Romanian and Moldovan languages, seems to be the more common one, as shown by several other results, among which the University of Oxford and the World Heritage Encyclopedia deserve mentioning. Almost all modern works use the form, while “Synod of Iași” is very uncommon. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Searching Synod of Jassy without "" gives me 56,600 results while Synod of Iași gives me 119,000. "Jassy" is not a Russian name by any means and it is archaic. Super Ψ Dro 15:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The term “Яссы”, which is spelt Jassy using the Latin alphabet, is, in fact, the Russian name. It may be archaic in contemporary Romanian, but this concerns a historical event and we often have to deal with those differently. It makes sense to use your form in Romanian, but in the English article, we often have to abide by different rules. Furthermore: When I do a simple search, I see that “Synod of Jassy” gives 57 900 results, while “Synod of Iași” gives only 14 900 results. It seems pretty clear that this form is more used. It is also pretty much prevalent in modern works (as well as all older ones I have seen), as shown by my reply to Amakuru down below. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Jassy doesn't come from Russian, it's just an Anglicisation of the Romanian name. Why would English use the Russian name of a Romanian city that was never under its power? And it isn't archaic in Romanian, it straight up doesn't exist, the city is simply Iași in Romania. My replies to the other points are also below Amakuru's comment. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: the name for the Ukrainian city of Kiyv was the Russian version (Kiev) in English until very recently (and it is still the Russian version in French). Therefore, it is possible that "English use the Russian name of a Romanian city that was never under its power" Veverve (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Kyiv was a Russian city for centuries. Iași never was. That's the difference. Super Ψ Dro 22:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The name may indeed not be Russian, but an anglicisation of the Romanian name, as you claim, but this alone is no reason to move the article without consensus as you did. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree - returning to original name; in fact, until recently (February 1, 2021) [1], this article was called Synod of Jassy (based on the cited references), and the name change was made without any clear argument in line with Wikipedia's policies (the change was made unilaterally by Super, without any prior consultation, although a poll should have been initiated when the first title was changed). (Rgvis (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
• Support. It's irrelevant that Jassy is archaic. That's the clear WP:COMMONNAME of the synod. Nobody called it Iași in 1642. Just as we wouldn't claim something that happened in Constantinople happened in Istanbul. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know what shows up to you, as the results vary for every country, but a Google search for "Synod of Iași" gives me 5,570 results while "Synod of Jassy" gives me 4,020. Super Ψ Dro 11:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Results in Google Scholar: Synod of Iași has 1,440 results, Synod of Jassy has 625. Using "", "Synod of Iași" has 20 results, "Synod of Jassy" has 24 (I can't leave links when using ""). Is this proposed name truly more common? Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The spelling Jassy is more common in Ngrams results[2]; "Synod of Iași" doesn't even show up there. This is about a historical event so the current spelling of the city name is irrelevant, similar to Kishinev pogrom (not Chișinău). (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The name of the city of Iași in common English has changed, but the name of the Synod has not yet changed in common English (and is IMO unlikely to do so but that is irrelevant for now). Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that the common ERnglish name hasn't changed? All evidence presented so far suggests it has.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - is there any evidence that it's commonly known as Synod of Jassy? As far as I can tell from a GBooks search, the Jassy form mainly appears in books dating to the 19th century while for Synod of Iasi we get much more modern works including those for good sources like Unesco. All in all I don't see a compelling reason to retain the archaic name, given that it doesn't seem to be the most common any more. (Something also seemingly backed up by Super Dromaeosaurus's regular Google check and scholar check above).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence. Looking at the Google Books page, we see that “Synod of Iași” is uncommon not only in older works, but also in moderns ones; only four modern works use this form. At the same time, we see that “Synod of Jassy” is indeed very common in older works, but also in modern ones; a total of 33 works from the 20th century use this form. Of the works published in the second half of the 20th century, there are 19 works using the form; we also have four works from the 21st century using it, in addition to the University of Oxford and the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which is a total of six sources. Furthermore: the term “Synod of Jassy” gives 57 900 results, while “Synod of Iași” gives only 14 900 results. I think we can safely conclude that “Synod of Jassy” is still the established term and that it far supersedes the “Synod of Iași” form (much like the “the Kishinev pogrom” is used in place of “the ‘Chișinău’ pogrom”). Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That "Synod of Iași" isn't used often in older books is irrelevant, the modern sources should be taken in account. Also, for you, modern work is apparently everything during the 21st century, which is clearly not true, and thus number of sources using "Iași" rises. And I don't know from where do you get these figures, when I search any of the names without "", I get 20,400 results for Synod of Jassy and 118,000 for Synod of Iași. Super Ψ Dro 21:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As is pretty clear from my statement above, the term “Synod of Jassy” is almost prevalent in works published after 1950 (which includes our present time). The “Synod of Iași” term is indeed a bit more common now than it previously was, but it is by no means as common as “Synod of Jassy” is. There are 19 works published after 1950 that use this form and only four using your proposal. The reason behind your figures could be that you are using Google in a language where they do use the “Synod of Iași” term. I did not use the quotation marks myself in the actual search. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore: why was this article moved in the first place? The move should have been preceded by a discussion like this one. This is the second time that you have moved a page without consensus. I find it very troubling. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am using Google in Spanish, not in Romanian, and I doubt Spanish Google would have any kind of particular preference for "Iași". From the links the person above left, there are 10 books using "Synod of Iași", all of them not older than the 1960s. If we only consider books from this decade or later using "Jassy", the results are 15. In this century, only about 3-5 books used "Jassy" while about 4-6 used "Iași" (the numbers vary for the books that do not show preview). Anyway, Google Books is not the only place that should be considered. In Google Scholar and in some versions of Google, "Iași" is more common than "Jassy" or almost as common as it, making "Jassy" at least not a vastly preferred version as you say. And regarding the other comment, mind being a bit more chronological and don't bring up old feuds and disputes here again. Super Ψ Dro 10:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Spanish name is “Synod of Iași”, so the Spanish version would naturally also favour this term. This would explain why you get so much more results. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If we only go by this century, the “Synod of Jassy” term is still as common as your proposal. If we count the second half of the 20th century, which includes several works from the 1990s, it is still “Synod of Jassy” that prevails. This page should never have been moved in the first place. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether some versions of Google use your proposal is irrelevant. Only the English language matters here. If both terms are as common on Google Scholar, the original term “Synod of Jassy” should still be used; it is more common on Google Books and gives 43 000 more results than your proposal, which is pretty impressive. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed for a while my language on Google to English, and "Synod of Jassy" gets 3,670 results while "Synod of Iași" gets 5,860 results. Without "", Synod of Iași gets 121,000 while Synod of Jassy gets 62,100. Then I changed my country in Google to the United States. Synod of Jassy has 62,200 and "Synod of Jassy" has 3,750 while "Synod of Iași" has 5,830 and Synod of Iași has 127,000. I changed for one last time my location to the United Kingdom. Synod of Iași, 129,000; "Synod of Iași", 5,520; "Synod of Jassy", 4,020 and Synod of Jassy, 62,900. You are right that if we only relied on the results in Google Books and Google Scholar the article should not have been moved, but the results in common Google break this tie and show that Synod of Iași is the most common option. Super Ψ Dro 11:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I have tried that for the United States version, both with and without quotation marks. These impressive results for “Synod of Iași” still never show up. The results remain about the same as those I presented before. In the United Kingdom version, though, things are different; here the “Synod of Iași” gets 52 300 results. The “Synod of Jassy” term, however, still gets 58 800 results, which is more. My conclusion is that this fact, as well as the stronger presence of the “Synod of Jassy” term in modern literature, settles the score for the original term. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As the score must be considered settled when it comes to Google, Google Books and the modern literature, I think the Google Scholar results are less important; at least not important enough to change the original name of this article. Do you have any other sources? Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Google searches are related to IP locations or something like that, so I invite other editors to do the same to see what shows up to them. While regarding other sources, there is not much else besides Google Books and Scholar that I can give and individual sources are not very useful in this case. Super Ψ Dro 11:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that is fair. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 11:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

How are things going in this article? It seems to me that a majority ask that the page be moved back to its original name. Is there a time limit that I am not aware of? In my opinion, this article should not have been removed in the first place, but rather have been preceded by a discussion. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)