Jump to content

Talk:Iași

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typo

[edit]

Typo where intent is unclear: "A society of physicians and naturalists has existed in Jassy since the early part of the ,oth century, and a number of periodicals are published." I'd guess 19th, but could be 18th, or, I suppose, 20th. Does someone know what it should be? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oldest institution of higher education

[edit]

The oldest institution of higher education in Bucharest is St Sava National College. The college was created in 1694 following Constantin Cantacuzino's initiative, under the name of the Royal Academy. Classes were taught in Latin and Greek, later expanded to Italian and French and then the sciences. It subsequently became one of the most respected high schools in Bucharest. During communism, its name was changed to Nicolae Balcescu High School. Following the anti-communist revolution of December 1989, the high school was renamed St Sava National College.

Its name was actually Academia Domnească Sf Sava - "Royal Academy Sf. Sava". The University of Iaşi was the first higher education institution to be organised as a University. IulianU 15:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial statements

[edit]

"[...] until 1859 when the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia merged to form Romania, with Iaşi as its first capital."

Please cite. AFAIK Bucharest was intended to be the capital of the United Principalities from the very beginning, as Iaşi was too close to the border with Russia. For the record, I'm from Iaşi myself :)

"Iaşi is an outstanding educational centre, strongly linked to French culture."

Again, please cite. I can't think of any particularly strong connection between Iaşi and French culture.

"The city preserves a splendid architecture"

No it doesn't. Many old buildings in Iaşi have been razed during Communist times, and the old city centre is now scarred by Stalinist-style blocks of flats. If we are talking about the city as a whole, the architecture of Iaşi is hardly "splendid".

IulianU 14:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What shall I cite? Iasi was the first capital of Rumania. Fact. If you're from Iasi, why are you asking me this? I don't care who intended what. Iasi was the first capital of Rumania. It only lasted four years, but it was still a capital.

This site says, for example: "Statul national roman, a luat in 24 ianuarie - 5 februarie 1862, numele de Romania si si-a stabilit capitala la Bucuresti" -- "The Romanian national state took the name Romania on 24 January/5 February 1862 and set its capital to Bucharest." That's when Romania began as a unitary state -- I'll remind you that the "United Principalities" of Moldavia and Wallachia still had separate Governments and separate state institutions. IulianU 16:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the part of Iasi being connected to French culture, but again, if you're from Iasi, then you probably know that there is a French consultant there, French exchange students, etc.

There is also a German cultural centre (Goethe Zentrum), and a Latin American one. There are way more Greek and Arab students in Iaşi than French exchange students. If anything, Iaşi is better connected to the Middle Eastern culture than to the French one. IulianU 16:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The city preserves a splendid architecture" -- then you say: No it doesn't

Yes, it does. You can't be from Iasi. You must be a Bucharest agent. Why don't you go and corrupt the Bucharest article, instead? If you don't revert (or at least keep the fact that Iasi was the first capital of Rumania), I will do it myself --Anittas 14:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


Please, do not move around my text when replying. Respect its structure. If you wish to quote me, fine; if you want to reply below my message, even better. As it was said: Iasi was the capital when the two principalities merged in 1859. Seperate governments, but the same ruler: Cuza - and he ruled in Iasi.

http://www.iasi.ro/about/brief.html

I'll insert my reply under the relevant text, in good Wikipedia tradition. This makes the conversation more easy to follow for the casual reader.
The United Principalities did not have a single capital until 1 October 1859 [1], when Cuza settled in Bucharest. So Bucharest was the informal capital until early 1862 when it became the de jure capital. I don't want to discredit Iaşi in any way, just to stay clear of chauvinism and lies. And oh, I stopped reading the link you provided above after the first two sentences. You should know why ;-) IulianU 17:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Iasi is not connected to Middle Eastern culture, you agent of Bucharest!

Agent of Bucharest? LOL! bogdan | Talk 17:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It don't matter if Iasi has one zillion Arab students; what matters is the curriculum in schoos and the cultural influence! There might be a German cultural centre, but French culture dominated - and still dominates - the curriculum. This, however, applies to most of Romania, and not just Iasi. --Anittas 16:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stopped calling me names and started treating this conversation in a less childish way.
What's the "curriculum" you're talking about? How many people you know in Iaşi who can speak French reasonably well? (i.e. more than bonjour and merci and merde). What good examples of French architecture can you name in Iaşi? How about a French art museum? When's the last time you have seen a French play at the Teatrul Naţional? (Mine was about 7 years ago). When's the last time you have seen a French play performed in French in Iaşi? Is there a French library in Iaşi? Is there a French tourist centre in Iaşi? When was the last time a French band or musician has performed live in Iaşi? See... this is my idea of a city "strongly linked to the French culture".
Yes, 19th century Romanians fantasized a lot about Romania being "France's younger sister", and this b*llcr*p has been perpetuated even by Communist propaganda in the 20th century. No word about Iaşi's Jewish heritage, nothing about the Armenians, Greeks, Turks, that have been part of Iaşi's culture for centuries. This whole "French influence" thing was a 19th century fad, a way for the emerging Moldavian and Wallachian gentry to feel "connected" to the "Western world". But dressing like the French and speaking like the French does _not_ necessarily make you one of them. So please, let's stop pretending. IulianU 17:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That site is the official site of Iasi. It might not be very well written, but the context is what matters. First you ask me for a link, then you diss it. Iasi was the first capital of Romania. It was the capital of the two principalities, was it not? It was where our 'constitution' - if you can call it that - was written.

Yes, Iasi is linked to French culture. That doesn't mean it's a copy of French culture. Why would it be a copy? It is linked, as in connected. Do you understand the difference? You might not see it to-day, but in the old days, when the boyars sent their children to study in Paris and Wien, you would've noticed it. You said that Iasi is more connected to Arab culture. In what way, if I may ask? This isn't about popularity in student numbers!

The architecture of Iasi is significant, for Romania. I think it should be mentioned. The Traian hotel was designed by Eiffel, the Trei Ierarhi used to be imbeded with gold on the outside, Palatul Culturii is said to be the Romanian Louvre, etc. Why shouldn't we credit these things?

And Jews are mentioned in the article, but if you think it should say more about them and Armenians, then please contribute. After all, this is Wiki. I'm sure no one will remove your contribution. --Anittas 01:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Rectification needed"

[edit]

Rectification needed: It is not "the citizens" of Iasi City which started the 1941 pogrom in the first place. It was the authorities, the state of war, the global hysteria, the collision between the nazi world and the soviet world. In such issues the nations do not decide. Governments do. Nations [the "citizens"] cannot be globally blamed for psychopatic governments.

[RECTIFICATION ADDED BY A CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF IASI].

12:39, 18 October 2005 User:193.226.101.26 (rajaciasi.ro)

I am not sure how it is possible to ignore the fact that people actually carried out the pogrom were mostly the police and citizens of Iasi, your response makes it sound like it was beyond their control. From the report commissioned by and accepted by the government of Romania: "Those participating in the manhunt launched on the night of June 28/29 were, first and foremost, the Iasi police, backed by the Bessarabia police and gendarmerie units. Other participants were army soldiers, young people armed by SSI agents, and mobs who robbed and killed, knowing they would not have to account for their actions." and "In addition to informing on Jews, directing soldiers to Jewish homes and refuges, and even breaking into homes themselves, some Romanian residents of Iasi also took part in the arrests and humiliation forced upon the convoys of Jews on their way to the Chestura. The perpetrators included neighbors of Jews, known and lesser-known supporters of antisemitic movements, students, poorly-paid, low-level officials, railway workers, craftsmen frustrated by Jewish competition, “white-collar” workers, retirees and military veterans." PDF In short, the people and police of Iasi carried out the pogrom, and they certainly bear substantial blame for the atrocities committed there, as does the Romanian government of the time. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, write as it says in that report. Don't say that citizens went out and started to kill. That makes it sound like the ordinary citizen went out to kill Jews. --Anittas 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ordinary citizens did go out and start to kill, along with the police etc. Ordinary citizens beat Jews to death at the Chestura and before in the town. They helped stuff Jews onto the trains. You might want to read the full report at the link. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some did. Most didn't. Let's blame the entire city for what some corrupted people did, shall we? Some Romanians risked their lives, hiding Jews in their homes, but don't write about that. Only bad things. In fact, why not bring Fox News to write about the history of Iasi? They know how to report news and history! --Anittas 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the Fox News reference, are you claiming that there is something biased about discussing the pogrom? The facts are that 14,000 civilians were slaughtered in a city in which they lived, in a pogrom that even the official Romanian report calls "among the most hideous murders committed against Jews anywhere during the Holocaust," and their fellow citizens either participated or did little to help. Sure there were attempts by some brave people to rescue the Jews, including Iasi pharmacist D. Beceanu and Viorica Agarici, chairwoman of the Romanian subsidiary of the Red Cross, but, again, from the Romanian report "Many people, however, who may have otherwise been willing to help, were unable to overcome the paralysis stemming from their feelings toward the Jews. Since antisemitic propaganda was so intense during the war, compassion for Jewish suffering or questioning their humiliation and persecution were construed as socially inappropriate or perceived as evidence of a lack of patriotism or even treason. Viorica Agarici, for example, was attacked so vehemently by the citizens of Roman that she had to resign from her position and take refuge in Bucharest, even though her son was a famous Romanian air force pilot."
Besides all this, I am not sure what you are objecting to. The current phrasing says: "...half the Jewish population, was either systematically massacred by citizens, police, and soldiers, or else placed on "death trains" driven back and forth across the country until they died of thirst or heat." What, exactly, is biased or wrong about this sentence? If anything, it is mild compared to the actual events that took place during the pogrom. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the facts; I only ask for all facts to be presented. I disagree with the way you present these events. If those people killed the Jews, then also tell about the people - even if they were few in comparation with the mob, who opposed these acts.

I also question your intentions in writing about this. I do think that we should be open about the Holocaust and admit all crimes, but you guys picked on Iasi specifically and say that it was "among the most hideous murders committed against Jews anywhere during the Holocaust". I think it's disrespectul to measure suffering, but let's get real here: they were murdured. They were not stripped of their clothes and gased en masse; children, parents, and grandparents together. No one committed medical experiences on them; no doctors tortured them.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the crimes, but now you even involve Bucharest by saying that some doctor fled to the capital because of threats committed against her. That thief city was the mastermind behind all of that stuff, anyway. Are you another agent of Bucharest, paid to make Iasi look bad?

Also, and this time I'm repeating myself; you specifically pick on Iasi. There were many, many cities in Europe that either directly killed Jews, or sent them to concentration camps by train. Even neutral Sweden did this, but no one dares saying anything about that, because Swedes are politically correct.

Another thing that I think should be examined is the reason behind the killing. Again, let's be 100-honest. Those people who killed the Jews were evil, but why weren't all Jews killed? You said it your self: "half the Jewish population, was either systematically massacred by citizens, police, and soldiers, or else placed on "death trains". What happened to the other half? Why were they spared?

Also, Romania stopped sending Jews to concentration camps 18-months before the war ended. That's a considerable time that saved the life of many Jews. Why isn't this being mentioned? Should we only be bad guys? Should we not have any heroes at all? You guys just want to worsen our image by presenting only the negative aspect of the events. --Anittas 04:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't know where to start. First, you start off by repeatedly and groundlessly attacking my intentions, in violation of the policy to assume good faith. I don't know who "you guys" are, there is no conspiracy to put down Iasi that I know of; I certainly have no ties to Bucharest, and you will see from my edit history that I have written about many Holocaust issues, including Ukranian, Polish, Baltic, Hungarian, Croat, and German complicity in the slaughters of Jews. You say "[I] specifically pick on Iasi" -- but that's just not true, this is the article about Iasi, so it is certainly relevant to include the Iasi pogroms here, but I have also worked on articles on other major pogroms of the period, such as the Jedwabne massacre and Kielce pogrom (both committed by Poles), Kristallnacht (by Germans), and the Lviv pogroms (committed by Ukrainians) -- so again, your accusations about my motives are false. Your slurs directed against my intentions are entirely misplaced, and your attacks on whatever mysterious "you guys" you are referring to are borderline offensive.
In any case, all of the material I am quoting, every last bit of it, was from a report by outside experts, using archives and eyewitnesses, commissioned and accepted by the Romanian government as true. You can read it online, in Romanian or English, here. It was this report that said that the massacres were among the worst in the Holocaust, precisely because they were so brutal and so many people were involved -- the beatings in the streets, the killing and robbing of families, the loading of the trains with 150 people apiece, the days of slow death of the people inside them -- that is what makes the Iasi pogrom relatively unique, especially as it is larger than any other of the period (Jedwabne was up to 1,600, Lviv up to 4,000), and carried out in great part by local authorities and civilians against their neighbors, rather than by soldiers against strangers, as so many of the large massacres of the war were.
You asked "What happened to the other half? Why were they spared?" To answer your question, the other half of the Jewish population was NOT spared, the entire surviving Jewish population (with the exception of a those that fled or remained hidden) was deported, they just weren't killed outright in the pogrom. "On June 29, 1941, Mihai Antonescu ordered the deportation of all Jews from Iasi, including women and children. The surviving Jews were taken to the railway station and were beaten, robbed, and humiliated along the way. Moreover, the Iasi sidewalks were piled with dead bodies, and the deportees had to walk over some of them along the street leading to the station...Finally, Jews were forced into freight train cars under a volley of blows, bayonet cuts, clubbings and insults. Many railway workers joined the pandemonium, hitting the deportees with their hammers." These were the death trains. Some of the survivors were deported to Calarasi, where they were held in camps at the 3rd Infantry Regiment (some returned to Iasi several months later, though some died in the camps) others were sent to Podul Iloaei where they were locked into synagogues and were also sent back to Iasi several months later.
As for Romania's role in the Holocaust, the report says "Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any country other than Germany itself." The fact that Romania killed "only" (according to the government) 280,000 to 380,000 Jews, and that half the Romanian Jewish population survived because they were used as a bargaining chips, is indeed discussed in the main article on Romania during World War II, but it does not bear on the article on Iasi, which was purged of all of its Jews during the pogrom, although some returned.
Finally, I think it is fine to include information about rescuers, but not at the expense of information about the pogroms itself -- what language would you propose? A balanced view means telling what actually happened, not trying to whitewash the truth. I also hope that you will apologize for your baseless accusations against me, and respond with substance, rather than attacks. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much blame can be put on Romania for murdering the 300,000 Jews. Much of the murdering was committed in Basarabia where the government didn't really control the area. I don't like the wording of that fragment where it describes the events.

Example: "was either systematically massacred by citizens". I don't like that part where it claims they were massacred by citizens. It makes it sound as the citizens went for a walk, bought an icecream, killed a Jew, and went home. It was only some who did it! Not the average Iasian! --Anittas 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by not blaming Romania for the murder of about 300,000 Jews. Are you denying that it happened? Or that Romanians were responsible? Who else would you blame? The Romanian government accepted that it was responsible: "Between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered or died at the hand of Romanian civilian and military authorities and in territories under their control." If you don't like the sentence fragment read the report, or the executive summary, which details all the numbers -- it is pretty disturbing stuff backed up by tons of records from the Romanian archives, like it or not, so clarify what you mean by "I don't know how much blame can be put on Romania."
As for the Iasi pogrom, what language do you propose? Would the word "a portion of" in front of civilians make you feel better? Something like: "...was systematically massacred by the Iasi police, Romanian soldiers, and a portion of the citizens of Iasi..." And please read the report, it is really eye-opening to get a sense of what happened, in Iasi, Romania as a whole, and in Bessarabia. The executive summary is here in Romanian and here in English (both are PDFs). --Goodoldpolonius2 06:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I won't deny facts, so stop trying to get me to deny them! The so-called Romanian goverment was a fascist, corrupted goverment that came to power by a coupe d'etat. They threw Nicolae Titulescu out, then the Iron Guard took control of things, leaving Antonescu without control - until he destroyed them. If you want to blame an entire population for a corrupted fascist organization, then you must be doing something wrong. As I said: the government didn't even fully control Basarabia. The Iron Guard did what they wanted there. And yes, I think it's better to replace that sentence with "a portion of the citizens of Iasi". --Anittas 06:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will make that change. As for the above exchange, I am not trying to get you to deny facts, but you have made numerous statements like "I don't know how much blame can be put on Romania for murdering the 300,000 Jews" or "I also question your intentions in writing about this," that make it unclear to me exactly what facts you are talking about, so I apologize if I reacted strongly. However, your statement "the government didn't even fully control Basarabia. The Iron Guard did what they wanted there" is problematic in a number of ways: First, Antonescu directly ordered many of the largest massacres personally, including the slaughters of the Jews of Odessa -- there is plenty of incredibly strong evidence of this, including written orders -- it was not the Iron Guard running wild, as you state. Second, the massacres were not just carried out by the Iron Guard, Romanian soldiers, civil authorities, police, and civilians were also involved, and many, many more were complicit, as many of the citizens of Iasi were. It is like saying that only Hitler and the Nazi leadership were responsible for the German murders of Jews; many Germans were involved in the Holocaust, it was not just the leaders, that is precisely why the Holocaust is so horrifying. It is also why your repeated statements trying to place the blame solely on the leaders and the Iron Guard and not on "Romania" sits so badly, large portions of the civil and military populations participated in parts of the destruction of the Jews, according to the report. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palatul Culturii

[edit]

We need a photo of Palatul Culturii. Can't we use this one from Romanian Wiki? http:/upwiki/wikipedia/ro/9/99/Iasi.jpg --Anittas 20:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a Creative Commons one, it's already in the article and uploaded to Commons. Ronline 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dacorum Jassiorum

[edit]

"The inscription by which the existence of a Jassiorum municipium in the time of the Roman Empire is sought to be proved, lies open to grave suspicion."

This is an intriguing statement, so I started to dig where it comes from. According to István Gyárfás, a Roman inscription was discovered near Osijek (Croatia): „pro salute et felici Pont. Max. et Anniae Faustinae Aug. Coniugi C. Clod. VI. Praef. M. Dacorum Jassiorum hanc statuam in Auraria numinibus”, dating to the time of Antoninus Pius (AD 140). Gyárfás was a 19th century Hungarian historian who researched history of the jász (ias), jazyg people, as he himself belonged to the jász people who settled in Hungary. The quote appears in the book "A jász-kunok története" (The History of the Jazyg-Comans) published in 1870. vfek.vfmk.hu/gyarfas_istvan/jaszkunok/

Gyárfás mentions the source also: "Katanchich Istri Accol. Geogr. vet. P. II. 239. Nro. 151."

Matija Petar Katancic (Valpovo, 1750 - Budim 1825) was an archeologist, writer and the fist translator of the Bible into Croatian (he was a Franciscan friar). He wrote a book about the roman milestone: A Tractate on the Roman Milestone Discovered near Osijek - DISSERTATIO / DE / COLVMNA MILLIARIA / AD / ESZEKVM / REPERTA / QVAM / PETRVS KATANCIVS / PANNONIVS / O.S. FRANCISCI / SCHOL. HVMAN. PROFESSOR P.O. / CONSCRIPSIT. /ESZEKI / TYPIS IOANN. MART. DIWALT / MDCCLXXXII. Osijek: I. M. Divald, 1782. Along with an exhausting tractate, it also contains a drawing of this lost milestone. [[2]]

So the milestone is lost... but I cannot find any "grave suspicion" on this Croatian Franciscan friar.--Sattila 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Under Nazi control"

[edit]

In what sense was Iaşi "under Nazi control" during the Iaşi Pogrom? I'm aware that the SS were present, and participated in the pogrom, but as far as I know, no portion of Romania was occupied by Germany at any point during the war. Antonescu's regime was quite in control of Iaşi, and whatever Antonescu may have been, he was not a Nazi. Nor was this during the period of the Legionary state: the Iron Guard were already out of power. At this time, Romania had just recently officially joined the Axis, but as a member, not an occupied country. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant

[edit]

I don't think is so much relevant to have the text: 99,5% Romanians and the other 0,5% gipsy. What do you think? I can offer you many examples of cities that don't offer such examples. Iasi 07:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion of correct information directly related to the topic. This is your last warning, Bonaparte. `'mikka (t) 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is important to have the lines on the minority %-age of a city with 99,5% majority of other people. Don't you agree with me? I know another city e.g. Focsani with more than 99,999% romanians. Apropos, why are you calling me Bonaparte and what is with all those warnings? --Iasi 06:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He must be on medication. I agree with your sugestion. The information must be "correct", but also RELEVANT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristi.falcas (talk • contribs) 24 May 2006.

I fully agree that information is irrelevant, and also the name of the city in Hungarian, since there is no such minority in Iasi, and the links with Hungary were at best indirect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.180.223.106 (talk • contribs) 27 November 2006.

To KIDB

[edit]

The other names were decided on the basis of communal presence and tradition (I have to wonder, however, about the alternatives present there). Consider Names of European cities in different languages. Dahn 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Dahn:
  1. It is not harmful to have the Hungarian name, or is it? It shows the importance of the city - it is known in other countries as well;
  2. It is interesting, regarding the origins, because the Hungarian name literally means: "Jassic Market" - this does not prove anything, so I did not elaborate on this in the article, just interesting to know
Argument invalid, as the current version shows. 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. You asked if the town has any relevance to Hungarians: My answer: Yes, this is the seat of the Catholic Bishop of the Csángós
  2. Very kind of you that you try to discuss things, but next time please try do so before deleting
--KIDB 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On principle, it is not (nothing is hurtful on wikipedia). However, it may be redundant and out of place - for sure, it would be redundant and out of place for me to add "Budapesta" to Budapest, and the same would go for the Hungarian variant of Bucharest.
  2. Yes, interesting. But adds nothing to the reasons.
  3. Roman Catholic=/=Csángó, although most Csángós are Catholics. A bishop is not "their bishop", and the church is not "their church": they represent a trans-communal religion, which now arguably has more Romanian followers than of any other community in Moldavia. Hungarian is not and was not used in services, and the church does not reference the names of its seats and places of worship in anything but Romanian - lest I'm wrong and you need to add Hungarian to Cotnari and Suceava.
  4. Now I'm just going to ask you to revert yourself. Dahn 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You order me to revert myself... :-) This is great! I like this. You know, I don't consider this issue to be important enough to have edit war with you about it. I only would like to note that you seem to be much less tolerant than Hungarian users, who have not deleted foreign names of major Hungarian towns like Debrecen, Szeged, Békéscsaba, Eger, Pécs, etc. Many greetings from Central Europe. --KIDB 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many greetings to irrelevancy and failure to get the point. Dahn 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just include the Hungarian name there and let's get on with our lives. It has no real relevance but then again neither does it do any bad. KIDB - Iaşi is overwhelmingly majority-Romanian. The second largest minority is the Roma, while the city also has significance to Jews. In this way, placing the Hungarian name there is not particularly relevant. Then again, the Hungarian pages you've linked to indeed have lots of foreign names with even less of a connection. This is not really about tit-for-tat, but foreign names are informative and beneficial to the encyclopedia. So I've inserted the Hungarian name and will do so for Roma and Yiddish too. Greetings from Central Europe too, Ronline ✉ 07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline, I will not remove it anymore. However, note that the Hungarian name was already "in the text somewhere" (the etymology section). Please, please do not consider me ethnically biased: I was just doing this for consistency's sake, and for criteria used by wikipedia (note that I oppose the innitiative to have Hungarian names for Transylvanian counties removed: I had just wondered if the Hungarian version here would not be equivalent to a Hungarian version for Bucharest or a Romanian one for Budapset, and I believe that all the counter-examples cited by KIDB were way more relevant for the particular communities). Dahn 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, I have seen too many of your edits to consider you ethnically-biased. In fact, some nationalist Romanians could say you are biased against them ;) But I think that the Hungarian name is nice to have in here, along with the Romani and Yiddish names. This doesn't mean, of course, that every Romanian administrative unit should now have Hungarian names, but here it's somewhat relevant. Ronline ✉ 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, does anyone know what the Yiddish name is? My guess is that the Jews of Iaşi only used Hebrew to read the Torah. —Khoikhoi 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I got hold of someone at Yad Vashem. Here's their reply:

I consulted our Romanian-speaking experts, and they told me that in contradistinction to the Polish Jews, who used to give the localities also Yiddish names, the Romanian Jews named their towns as it was commonly accepted, in the particular case as Ias (Yash), Russian-influenced name was Iasi (Yassy).

Regards,
Mark Shraberman
Reference & Information Services
בתשובה נא להזכיר את פניה מספר 51386
ההודעה נשלחה על ידי מרק שרברמן

So there is apparently no distinct Yiddish name. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. My point is that I don't see how the Hebrew name is relevant when the Jews of Iaşi never spoke it in everyday-use. —Khoikhoi 04:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

The Palace of Culture is lovely, but do we really need two pictures of it in an article on the city? (More would be appropriate in an article on the building itself.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try aboutromania.com Basketball110 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments

[edit]

Iasi population (July 1st, 2004): 317812

Source: National Institute of Statistics

http://www.insse.ro/publicatii/Romania_in_cifre.pdf (Scroll to page 9).

In the Gallery section, the third picture caption should be Lapusneanu Street, not Lapusneanul Street.

I'm surprised there's no picture of the "Vasile Alecsandri" National Theatre. It's one of the symbols of the city and the oldest theatre in Romania.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teatrul_Naţional_%22Vasile_Alecsandri%22_Iaşi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.22.173.10 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why so many pictures with shops?

[edit]

Why do we need pictures with Iulius Mall, Moldova Mall or The Central Hall? No picture from Copou, no picture with "Teiul lui Eminescu", no picture with "Bojdeuca lui Creanga", no "Trei Ierarhi", no Golia, and other monumets. But we have 3 shops and 3 pictures with the streets. And a black picture with the first university from Romania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristi.falcas (talk • contribs) January 15, 2007.

Sister cities

[edit]

Isn't Monterrey, MX, a sister city of Iaşi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.157.111.126 (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Pogrom

[edit]

I understand that there was a progrom in which many Jews were systematically killed, but why must the section of this event be included in the article, in such a large space? There is already a separate article for this. From a historial perspective, I don't see this event holding such a great significance for the history of Iasi. I believe that Iasi was burned down at least 6 times (Tatars, Turks, etc.) and many people were killed. If we were to give each slaughter an equally long section, the article would be too long. I suggest the section to be shortened. Also, the Jewish history of Iasi is also too long. How is that of any significance for the article? If every minority was to have an equally long section, again: the article would become too long. The history of the Jews only mention a statistics of numbers, but where's the legacy? A theater that was only popular to the Jews? A cemetary and a synagogue? What's the big deal about that? In fact, the Greeks hold a much richer history in Iasi: many of the Princes were of Greek origin; many of the scholars that studied at Iasi, were of Greek origin; and the Greek revolution, which was going to turn very bloody, started at Iasi. Yet I don't see a section of the Greek history in the article, taking a lot of space. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Why don't you write the section on the Greek princes? That would be more constructive than proposing the deletion of an existing, valid section.--Redaktor 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Redaktor. The way to go here is to add material to other sections - missing content and available material make such requests for "balancing" utterly pointless. One does not balance an article by making all sections as vague and superficial as possible. Using this logic, we should also trim and turn more ambiguous our articles on the Holocaust, since killing millions of Jews sure made their presence in Europe less significant... Dahn 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose to delete the section, but to shorten it. Dahn actually agrees to this practice. This is what he did to the Moldavia article by creating other articles about Moldavian military, etc. This section is too long and is not really relevant to the city of Iasi any more than any other tragic event. Also, much of the Jewish history of Iasi is not notable enough to have it in the article. How is it notable to mention that there is a Jewish cemetary from the 18th century? And in fact, why is there a seperate section for the Jewish history of Iasi? Did they not take part of the same city? Shouldn't their history belong to the rest of the history of the city? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to Redaktor and Dahn. On the pogrom: unless I am mistaken, Iaşi was 20-25% Jewish at the time. Anittas, are you seriously saying that if the Jews of the city had murdered half of the ethnic Romanians, you wouldn't consider that a very important event in the city's history? Similarly, on a city outside of Romania that was 25% Romanian for most of its history, wouldn't you be inclined to write a section on the history of the Romanian community in that city? - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tatars did just that several times; and like I said: if we are to cover every such event in the history of Iasi, you'll have an article of the size of Bucharest, covering just the murderers of people. I didn't say that we should remove the text; I said we should reduce its lenght. And there are cities with Romanian minority in it, and I don't think it's important to write about Romanians having a cemetary there. Why should that be considered important? --Thus Spake Anittas 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Anitts, from what I know on the subject, a comparison with the Tatar raids is a gross exaggeration: before the pogrom, no massacre in Iaşi ever had such drastic effects. Dahn 09:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pogrom concerns more the history of the Jews, or a history of the jewish community in Iasi, than the history of Iasi.~~

Third-largest?

[edit]

According to "factmonster.com," Iasi is the second largest city. I don't believe it, but they have sources. I'd really like to find out. (Basketball110 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See this pdf file from the Romanian National Institute of Statistics [3] Iasi is indeed second. Edgar (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Basketball110 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF linked by Edgar81 is a bit old; this article [4] published in a Cluj-Napoca newspaper now ranks Cluj-Napoca ahead of Iasi for the title of second-largest city in the land. Király-Seth (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the English name for the city?

[edit]

I'd like to see sources, thanks.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA JewishEncyclopedia LoveToKnow

Edgar (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of S-cedilla U+015F vs. S-comma U+0219

[edit]

Noting that Iaşi is used instead of Iași. The spelling with s-comma is the correct one. Don't know if this was a conscience decision or just overlooked.

Russell.harper (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the s-comma used to be absent from Unicode (see S-comma). --Chrsschm (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the S-comma is this: I did an unscientific survey. I checked out the page, "Iași", on 14 computers (friends, family and work) including speaking on the phone with 3 friends who lived in different countries. 2 people were using Foxfire - the S-comma looked OK on one of them. On the other 12 computers, all using MS Internet Explorer, only one looked OK. All of the others showed an S-comma that was 2/3 the size of the surrounding letters. A funny looking, little runt of a character. That is why I switched the S-comma to S-cedilla. My change was subsequently reverted.
I, personally, have now installed the Microsoft EU font update even though I don't live in the EU. The S-comma now looks OK on my computer.
Which is better, going around the world and upgrading everyone's computer or using the (not truly Romanian) S-cedilla so that everyone can read the article without being distracted by the cartoon-like S-comma that shows up? You really need to see just how ridiculous it looks! (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2011
One solution is to use the S-comma in all Romanian (language) Wikipedia articles (and for that matter all other languages of the EU). As for English Wikipedia articles, maybe we should use the S-cedilla for a few more years until the majority of computers in the (non-EU) English-speaking world are naturally upgraded.
Or how about this: At the top of articles which include the S-comma, put a notice: "This article uses the letter 'S-comma' which is not supported by older versions of Windows. If the letter 'S-comma' appears smaller than the other letters, kindly install the Microsoft EU font update" --@Efrat (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

[edit]

I have some serious doubts about some of the nicknames listed in this article. For instance, "Cultural Capital of Romania" only appears as a passing reference on a local tourist site, and there are websites that make similar claims about Sibiu [5]. I suggest we refrain from including such dubious, "local pride"-related nicknames and stick to ones which are actually recognized and used by people in general. CaptainFugu (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually it looks like even Prime Minister of Romania uses this term as a symbolical syntagm for Iasi: [6]
The so-called "Cultural Capital" name is a historical name that comes for more than 100 years, especially after the official administrative capital was moved to Bucharest (for anybody interested in history and who can read Romanian: [7]). Like anywhere, not all persons (local pride, perhaps :-) agree with this term, but this is a completely different thing (is Bucharest still considered "Little Paris" anymore, or by all people? Of course not, but it's about history and tradition, right!?).
Can we consider other cities as Capital of Culture, too? It depends upon context (Sibiu, for example was officially designated as European Capital of Culture for 2007), but for Iasi and Romanian history this name has a traditional connotation and it is not meant or necessary to be unanimously liked or approved!
So, here we have some links to Official Websites or websites, others than tourism:
Iasi City Hall: [8]
Ministry of Development Public Works and Housing: [9] or: [10]
University of Iasi: [11]
Jurnalul newspaper: [12]
Ziarul Lumina: [13]
Suplimentul de Cultura: [14]
Ziarul Financiar newspaper: [15]
Romanian Coins: [16]
(Rgvis (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Fair enough. My mistake. CaptainFugu (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... the i is silent.

[edit]
Although in most languages the final i is pronounced, in Romanian, however, the i is silent.

I don't know who wrote that, but it's simply false. The "i" is just shorter, not silent. That is the case for many words ending in "i". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.44.135 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the name quite often, and in order to confirm my experience I've also just watched the first few videos that come up on YouTube when I search for Iași, and I have to say that the i is so infinitesimally short as to be non-existent - therefore including it in the pronunciation guide is misleading. Any foreigner who says "yashy" just sounds silly, so the advice currently given by the Wikipedia page is remarkably unhelpful. Dadge (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exaggerations

[edit]

There are a lot of controversy about the deportation of Jewish people called by zionists as pogrom. A lot of historians as Constantiniu F,[17], Dragan I.C. [18], Buzatu Ghe., [19], Stoenescu Al. [20],Solomonovici T. [21] wrote about different perception about the deportation. Deportations were usually in all Europe and US in the second WW. All germans and nippons were sent in camps in US during the war. The same situation was in Romania but a lot of people died because of some extremists and bad conditions of transport system. Exaggerations are typically for zionists. Starting with a bad and false hypothesis their conclusions are false. Example of exaggerations: zionists claims 13,266 peopele died but historical reports (references mentioned above)show above 1000-1500 people. This is why exaggerations make impossible to understand the true. Readder (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To take just one issue with your recent edits, there is no historical equivalence between the killings associated with Iasi at this time and your (frankly bizarre) link to the internment of Japanese and German civilians in the US during the war. RashersTierney (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Readder this plainly anti-semitic and Holocaust-denying neo-nazi commenter has no place gerr 2A00:23C8:3400:1B01:8180:740:61A9:C74A (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no historical equivalence between the killings associated with Iasi at this time and your (frankly bizarre) link to the internment of Japanese and German civilians in the US during the war" ??? It is a connection. You need to read more. I entered a lot of references because it is better to know all historic opinions not only the opinions of some activists. Historians showed there was a deportation and during the transport, a lot of people died. In the city of Iasi there was some chaotic killings started by some extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readder (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki rules, it is better to know the opinion from different sources.So I added some historians in this section.Readder (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is better to know all local historians research and opinions and not only activist's opinions. A lot of people wander why Romanian historians are silent. But this silent is produced by censors. Comparing opinions is better than listening a singular voice. 79.112.18.244 (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Those "local historians" are no historians at all: you cite a fascist ideologist, an Antonescu apologist, and a proven Securitate agent who specialized in engineering. Outside of neofascism and national communism, Romanian historiography universally recognized, researched and condemned the antisemitic crimes in Romania, and cites the same numbers when it comes to the victims. No ifs or buts here.
And that shit about Japanese internments, "Exaggerations are typically for zionists" et al. is entirely propagandistic, and plainly shows the pro-Nazi agenda we are dealing with. Dahn (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. WP:FRINGE applies here. RashersTierney (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iasians

[edit]

The Iasians lived among the Cumans and they left the Caucasus after the first Mongolian campaign in the West (battle of Kalka). The ethnic name of Jasz which is given to Iasians by Hungarians has been erroneously identified with Jazyges. Also the word jasz is a loan word from Slavon language. A.P. Horvath, Pechenegs,Cumans,Iasians, Hereditas, Budapest, 1989, p. 64Eurocentral (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remind

[edit]

Just a remind. Consensus should incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to decide whether this is an exceptional case or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iași. 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).

  • 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) 16:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iași. 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).

  • 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) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Iași. 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).

  • 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) 13:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air pollution concerns

[edit]

I propose to remove this section for the following reasons:

  • only 3 cities are monitored (Bucuresti, Brasov and Iasi); so Iasi si actually the second most polluted city out of these 3
    • one link that shows that it is always about these 3 cities
    • I might accept that there are concerns for Iasi, but in the same logic Brasov is the third most polluted city in Romania, which is simply insane(I've just made a trip to Brasov, and the air is very nice)
    • if someone does not agree with my statement, please provide an official link with all the cities that are monitored (I am particularly interested in Cluj, Timisoara and Sebes)
  • the monitoring station is placed on the most crowded(including trucks in transit) road in Iasi: link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.34.180 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Your own personal report or visiting Brasov isn't really admissable as evidence here, though hope you had a great trip and glad the air was clean.
It's really simple, the source says it's the 2nd most polluted city.
:) You ask that other people provide sources.... actually that's your job! If you find a source which disagrees with the source used, we can put it in and say sources disagree.TantraYum (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

If the city of Iași in English is called Jassy is still written Iași ? Why can not it? That is the treatises and other documents appear to be Jassy.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raresrares20 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is very simple. The city is normally referred to in English as Iași these days. The older form is not much used now, except in historical contexts, such as the name of the treaty. LynwoodF (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Iassy"

[edit]

Are you sure the name "Iassy" exists? Never heard of it; neither in historical, nor in modern contexts. I know that a source which supposedly mentions this name is given, but I am afraid it could be a misspelling of "Jassy".

Jassy, on the other hand, is a real name and should be in the opening, since it was not only officially used until the end of WW2, but is also used in modern times, especially among Jewish communities, for some reason.

I've removed "Iassy"; if you disagree, let's talk about it here. Lupishor (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Petronis: I don't think we need sources mentioning "Jassy", at least not in the opening, since there are many Wikipedia articles using that name in their title and there's even an image on this article showing the name (the one with the stamp). Lupishor (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

It should be updated. It is to vague. I am a Romanian historian and can contribute, bust most of my titles are in Romanian. I can still find some translated authors, like Keith Hitchins (Romania, 1866-147) or Neagu Djuvara (A short illustrated history of the Romanians). Tudorvisanmiu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroport

[edit]

De ce aeroportul din iași arată așa provincial în comparație cu cel din Chișinău? Buganicu91 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articolul cere mai multă informație

[edit]

mai multe poze, informații critice Buganicu91 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Târgu Mureș. Sângeorgiu de Pădure. Sovata. Lacul Bezid

[edit]

Târgu Mureș. Sângeorgiu de Pădure. Sovata. Lacul Bezid 2A02:2F07:DE0C:E000:7CC6:6925:87A:D606 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iași&oldid=1249791333"