A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 5, 2006, February 5, 2007, February 5, 2008, February 5, 2009, and February 5, 2010. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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))
The result of the move request was: moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Dear followers, please give you vote also for Talk:United Principalities. -- Thanks, Saturnian ( talk) 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please read the following text:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"....
That is 1950-2011 in Google Scholar. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:59, 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)
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
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
I hope it helps Boldwin ( talk) 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Lost of personal animosity. Unhelpful. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
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.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)