Gutza wrote: />/ />/ _Ok, I might be wrong or subjective here (I'm actually fuming), but />/ what *do* you imagine such an atheist organization would do? I am />/ trying really hard not to be sarcastic here, so please excuse me if />/ some sarcasm gets through, but what do you imagine an atheist />/ organization would favor? Now now, let's keep things into perspective, />/ think about an "atheist organization" which is trying to doctor you />/ into believing whatever they say. Talk to me, Saintonge, you seem to />/ know how this works, you tell me what such an organization does! If I />/ may "say what I might", the way you put it, I will tell you that they />/ DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT RELIGION! Sorry, was that too tough for your />/ cute little theory? Then I will tell you a little more, Mr. Theory />/ Man: not only did they give a shit about it, they actually resented />/ it. They took down churches. They forced people to work during holy />/ days. They changed the names of saints. They condemned you for />/ cherishing your saints. Now you tell me, how can such an "atheist />/ organization" relate to the discussion at hand? / -No need to get so worked up about a topic when it's only religion. If -they were equal opportunity oppressors they would have treated both -groups in the same way. In the course of their using the Romanian -language, some reference to the words that you now find difficult would -have been inevitable. Ok, first I have to apologize for the tone of my previous reply, I got emotionally involved. Now, regarding the communists, you don't understand, that's really completely irrelevant. One of their almost explicit goals was to break the traditions everywhere and in any way they could. So the way they spelled the name (which I'm honestly not aware of them doing anywhere) is probably an invention of theirs. Just to give you an example I know positively of, they spelled 'God' with no capital letter. And in Romanian we have a specific word for "the" Christian God, it's not the same word as for generic gods, like it is in English. Would you consider that to be relevant in any discussion on that topic? />/ />/ _Nothing, they don't regulate these things. If they were somehow />/ forced to actually take a stand, they would probably promote the BOR />/ naming. (BOR = The Romanian Orthodox Church) / -Not that I support the right of any academy to regulate language - there -is no academy for English. Still the term that they tend to use in -their publications would be some kind of evidence. Well, basically all "evidence", including the Google searches on the RA site and generic Google searches support the BOR version, but both you and Danutz deem that to be irrelevant. />/ />/ _Yes, the Eastern Orthodox religion. />/ _ /I was wrong on this one, as Danutz pointed out. However, speking demographically there is a vast majority of Eastern Orthodox people among the whole of the Romanian ethnics, within Romania or abroad./ />/ 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.) />/ />/ _The "other" version came to be due to whatever reasons the Catholic />/ Church in Romania decided. Can't you see that all this is more or less />/ arbitrary? Do you really think that the BOR version is really what one />/ would call "orthodox" in the ethimological sense? No, it's just a />/ conventional name for the same religious and historical person, that's />/ all. / -Of course it's arbitrary. And of course etymological orthodoxy is not -implied by religious Orthodoxy. The real "conventional" name is the one -that everybody accepts, but the problem is that you have no convention. Yes we do, and if that didn't result from the previous posts then it's my fault for not stating this explicitly. 87% of the Romanians in Romania are Eastern Orthodox (I can't tell about the Romanians abroad because I only have the demographics data for Romania). />/ should accept both. />/ />/ _Sorry to formulate it this way, but your solution is really cute. Did />/ you actually take the time to read the original message?_ / -Since you mentioned it I made a point of re-reading the original post. -There's nothing to prevent you from accepting both forms as correct. If -I had wanted to suggest something cute I would have taken note that it -is a two part name, and split the baby down the middle with one part of -the name from each group. Ok, sorry for being ambigous. The original problem is that we argue about *naming* the article, not about which version to accept. We all agree that both versions should be accepted. />/ introduced in that article should have precedence. />/ />/ _Sorry, I might be off on this one, but IMHO the sentence above />/ doesn't say anything practical. Yes, the first form always has />/ precedence because it's the first, but what do you mean? Honestly not />/ being sarcastic._ / -I see it as perfectly practical, and objective. Whoever started the -primary disputed article has earned the right to name it. I don't know -which version that person used, and I don't want to know. (I have no -intention to edit in Romanian, so my own personal preference doesn't -matter.) As you said the other form would redirect anyway. If another -person wants to link from another article, he should be free to use -whatever form he wants there. Internal consistency within an article -should still be encouraged. It certainly works with the huge number of -spelling variations that there are between British and American, and -that's without getting into Canadian, Australian, Indian, South African, -or Trinidadian variations. Again, my bad -- the same as above, the problem is naming the article, and that will also end up being the first version; once we decide on the former, the latter is automatically solved. -You raised the question, and I think that all those who responded did so -in good faith, perhaps it would be a great exercise of Wikiquette to -recognize that fact. How you decide your question, will not affect -anything we do where we do it. Of course you responded in good faith. The problem was not in your answers, the problem was my attitude in the previous post and the fact that I wasn't clear enough. I hope this message clarifies some of the things which I failed to mention in my previous ones. As you can see, there is an overwhelming majority of Romanians using one form of the name, and I feel that should be more important than the choice of the author of the article, as you suggest above. Thank you for your patience, Gutza