Sorry for replying out of the thread, my subscription suffered some unknown damage so I have to get the replies from the web archive, I don't receive them by mail although I am subscribed.
Ok, I hoped I could avoid saying what this is about, but I should have seen the RO/HU assumptions coming -- and it's only natural. The article in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern) Orthodox Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos". Other religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the Romanian name is Isus Cristos.
So now you know. It's not about Timisoara, and on a personal note I mildly resent the way you presented the analogy, as if Timisoara is natively spelled Temesvár in the same way as Vienna is spelled "Wien"; I honestly don't understand why you had to bring that into the discussion out of nowhere. But let's not get into this now, it would be a waste of our time.
Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself, because all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a side note, to put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the case, no Magyars are involved in the dispute itself.
Cheers, Gutza
Gutza wrote:
/ Hello,
/>/ />/ I hope I'm posting this on the right list, don't know where else to />/ turn. We have a minor dispute on the Romanian Wikipedia and I'd like to />/ ask for your advice. The dispute refers to the naming of an article />/ (would prefer not to specify which article, but it's a sensitive topic />/ with people). Now, there are two spellings proposed for the article />/ name: the one widely accepted in Romania and another one which is />/ preferred by a Romanian minority. />/ / Well, if it’s an issue with a city name or anything like that, it may be just as appropriate to call Temesvár Timişoara as it is to call Wien Bécs or Kraków Krakkó on the Hungarian wikipedia or Wien Vienna on the English one simply because the host language calls it that way.
It’s a matter of language, I think, not a matter of what country the language is spoken. If they want a Hungarian article (I guess this is just another Székely vs. Romanian “trouble”), they could always come to the Hungarian Wikipedia and write the article there with a Hungarian title and Hungarian contents.
/ Some people say that the article should be named the way the Romanian
/>/ majority spells it, others say it should be named as the minority spells />/ it, as to respect the rights of the minority, and most importantly />/ Wikiquette. The article topic itself is not per se relevant to neither />/ the minority nor the majority in particular. Of course that in both />/ cases a redirect will be made from the "other" spelling to the main />/ article, regardless of which will remain as the main article and which />/ remains as a redirect. />/ / Otherwise, I’d be really interested to know what article this is about.
Gutza wrote:
Ok, I hoped I could avoid saying what this is about, but I should have seen the RO/HU assumptions coming -- and it's only natural.
Worry not, and please don’t higher your defences, I really didn’t mean to offend in any way. As you said, yes it’s natural to suspect it mught be such a difference — which is the exact reason why I tried to elaborate on such issues.
The article in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern) Orthodox Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos". Other religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the Romanian name is Isus Cristos.
On that one, I can sadly not offer many suggestions, maybe that you could go with the more common one then. Take a look at demographics and default to the bigger group, and don’t forget to detail the differences in naming in the article. If there are more differences between the eastern and western “interpretations”, it might as well be a good idea to make a separate entry with links to each other.
So now you know. It's not about Timisoara, and on a personal note I mildly resent the way you presented the analogy, as if Timisoara is natively spelled Temesvár in the same way as Vienna is spelled "Wien"; I honestly don't understand why you had to bring that into the discussion out of nowhere. But let's not get into this now, it would be a waste of our time.
It was the only city whose Romanian name I was 100% sure how to write and went out of my way to get the squiggly thing work under the s :P Nothing more, just wanted to give examples otherwise. If it had been such an issue of spelling, I still believe it is a good idea to favour the name in the host language, instead of favouring a “foreign” name in order to please some minority. Redirects, of course, are welcome.
Then again, had you said what this was about, I hadn’t jumped into this whole thing at all :)
Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself, because all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a side note, to put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the case, no Magyars are involved in the dispute itself.
Wasn’t worried about that factor at all; again, no need to higher your defences. I just hope I can be of help.
Gutza wrote:
Ok, I hoped I could avoid saying what this is about, but I should have seen the RO/HU assumptions coming -- and it's only natural. The article in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern) Orthodox Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos". Other religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the Romanian name is Isus Cristos.
So now you know. It's not about Timisoara, and on a personal note I mildly resent the way you presented the analogy, as if Timisoara is natively spelled Temesvár in the same way as Vienna is spelled "Wien"; I honestly don't understand why you had to bring that into the discussion out of nowhere. But let's not get into this now, it would be a waste of our time.
Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself, because all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a side note, to put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the case, no Magyars are involved in the dispute itself.
I'm glad that you've clearly identified. I thought that your approach in your approach in your first letter was needlessly evasive. Personally, I was guessing something based on the speech differences between Romanian and Moldovan, but now I realize that it has to do with the Greeks and that there is no imminent Eskimo uprising in Timisoara. :-) People do bring these issues out of nowhere when they are left to guess about the problem.
Going with the majority (Google or otherwise) is never satisfactory. That breeds the tyranny of the majority. In English these problems have been numerous in relation to usages by the British and Americans. French, Spanish and Portuguese also encounter differences between European and New World versions.
I would be asking questions like: How does the secular press deal with the issue? How was it dealt with in communist days? (Say what you might about them, I can't imagine that an atheist organization would favour one religion over the other.) What does the Romanian Academy have to say about the matter? Is there such a thing as an "official" religion in Romania? I can see that the Orthodox version is based on a transliteration from the Greek, but how did the other version come to be what it is. (Romanian, after all, is still a romance language.) If reviewing all these question does not give *clear* guidance, you should accept both. For each article where the question is relevant, the first form introduced in that article should have precedence.
Ec
ok. let me present you the hole situation, from my side, the one who wrote the article, Danutz from ro.wiki. I had many contributions to Wikipedia since September 2003, some two mounths after it was lauched. Gutza could confirm that I wrote a lot in Wikipedia. Well, i'm a catholic, so in respect to my church, I wrote the article at Isus Cristos.
Look what I found on the portuguese Wikipedia, about the use of Portuguese and Brazilian versions of Portuguese language:
Por exemplo, na página principal aparece em vários sítios a palavra "projecto". Esta palavra está escrita na norma seguida em Portugal e em África. No Brasil, escreve-se "projeto".
Qual das duas versões está correcta? Ambas.
Simplesmente uma versão é usada no Brasil e outra em Portugal, África e territórios asiáticos... Como acontece nas outras grandes línguas internacionais, não existem versões superiores ou inferiores: são apenas diferentes. Por isso, não veja algo que não está escrito no seu Português como incorrecto apenas por isso.
Esta Wikipédia é de língua portuguesa. Ou seja, é de todos os falantes do português, seja qual for a norma que utilizam. Consequentemente, é má educação mudar da norma "A" para a norma "B", porque isso implica uma falta de respeito com todos os utilizadores da norma "A" da língua portuguesa.
It tells about the use of the versions of Portuguese language. Now adapted to the situation, it would be like that:
E.g., the the article "Isus Cristos" is written in it's catholic form, a church that compromises some 10% of the romanian speaking population. The ortodox form is "Iisus Hristos.
Wich of those two versions is correct? Both.
It's just that a version is used by the Orthodox Church, and the other one by the Catholic Church... Like in other international languages, there is no version better or worse: there are just diferences. That's why, you should not consider something written in you church's form as not correct just because of this.
This Wikipedia is for the Romanian-speaking countries. In other words, for all the speakers of this language, even though they are orthodox or chatolic. So, it is rood to move from the A to B, because this is a lack of respect for the users using the form A of the romanian language.
So, one of the arguments is that the article was originally written at the chatolic form, and not the orthodox. So it should be bad education being moved, acording the Wikiquette generaly used in all international Wikipedias.
Second. The form Isus Cristos is widely spread in Romania, and it has majority in the region Transilvania, because of the influence of the Catholic Church here, that being for much the official religion of the region (when Transilvania was part of Hungary). In many writings, like press and books the form Cristos is used, and the majority of romanians (at least in Transilvania where I live, the city of Cluj-Napoca) tend to pronounce Cristos. Ronline, a romanian user that lives in Oradea, confirmed that.
Third. Romanian is a romance language, and in all Romance languages the form Cristos is used. Many say that the form Hristos, comes from the greek version of the name, but in fact it comes from the slavonic form of the name.
As I created the article, and as both forms are accepted, and widely spread in regions of Romania I belive that the article should remain at it's current place, Isus Cristos.
BTW, only 35 milion people speak portugues do Portugal, and some 174 milion people speak portugues do Brazil, still the minority has the right to impose herself in the pt.wiki, with the method, presented to you above by me.
Thank you for your time. Danutz.
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Companion - Scarica gratis la toolbar di Ricerca di Yahoo!
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org