Talk:Names of the Greeks/Archive 1

Question about "barbaroi"

I was under the impression that barbaroi meant "bearded ones." Is this not true? If it is, why isn't that included in this article? Best, Hydriotaphia 00:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Barba" for beard is not a Greek word. I've heard another etymology that claims that the word βάρβαροι comes from the ever-repeating "bar-bar-bar", what the language of the foreigners sounded like to Greeks... Etz Haim 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That's right—I was forgetting that barba is Latinate. I'm going to look up "barbarian" in the OED and see what it says. I've heard that "bar-bar-bar" thing before too; let's see if it's right. Hydriotaphia 01:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading Martin Bernal cite someone's conjecture that the bar-bar onomatopoieia (sp) was a folk etymology and that the phoneme bar- meaning gibberish-speaker had antecedents and continuity going waaay back to Sumerian (through Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Akkadian). Sorry for the lack of link support. Googling yielded nada and I'm at work. FulminousCherub

"Greeks (Γραικοί)" section

Two things in this section need to be improved: (1) the significance of the reference to Oropos is unclear; why is Oropos being referred to here? Some context is needed. (2) The theory of migration to Italy, given in the last paragraph of this section, should be evaluated. What do scholars think of it? Is it plausible? What's the consensus? Hydriotaphia 00:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

First of all thanks a lot for correcting grammar and syntax. Regarding barbaroi, its the first time I heard of that that meaning. As far as I know, all sources indicate it originally meant "foreign speaking", later evolving into its present meaning of "uncivilized".

Your right about Oropos. It has no significance there so I removed it. I'm sure I wrote it for a reason but right now I cant remember why.

On the establishment of Graecus in Italy there is no consensus among scholars. At least not a unanimous one. The dominant theory is an educated guess that the colony Cumae spread the name through contact with natives. A consensus does exists in its etymology, and has it that it originated from the Graeans, a tribe originally from Boeotia which probably at some point settled in Epirus and eventually migrated to Italy (Cumae), before the first wave of Greek colonists arrived there in the 8th cent BC. The lack of written sources make it difficult for conclusions to be drawn, academics dont have much to work with, which is why there's not much to say about this section. Colossus 02:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, the daily life meaning of the word "Barbaros" in Greek is "violent" and generally "a person that uses brute force". Something like this. --Polaralex 19:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Change" versus "Distortion"

Colossus, many congratulations on this article. You've done quite a job. One question for you, though: don't you think "distortion" is an inappropriately normative, and therefore POV, word to use in this context? After all, you can only call something a semantic "distortion" if you have a preconceived notion of what the correct use of a word is; and the only way you can have a view of the correct use of a word is either to appeal to consensus or to a view of what is right and wrong, a view that would necessarily be controversial. So I would counsel you to change the word back to "change" or a related term—or to appeal to a consensus of some sort. Or am I missing something in your use of the word "distortion"? Again, warm congratulations on this article. Hydriotaphia 01:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I intently used distortion in order to point out its derogatory use. True, it didnt start off that way. Early Christians used it purely as a religious term, but after the first persecutions and the rising discrimination between the two sides, Hellene did pick up a demeaning use. It resembled more the meaning of heathen and infidel rather than just a person of different faith. Now that I read the section again I realize that I hadnt clarified this point enough, but Hellene definitely had a derogatory use to it, that even its contempories were aware of. That's why Procopius refrained from naming the Byzantines as Hellenes, but always in association with Roman (Hellenoromans - see section in article about him). I'll add a line or two in the article making a point of it. Colossus 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hydriotaphia, but I should have addressed the matter on Talk before editing the article; sorry. The problem is that all words change meaning over time, as the rest of the article so clearly shows. Calling Greeks "Romans" is a "distortion"; using the tribal name Graioi to mean Greeks is a "distortion"; the derogatory meaning of "Byzantine" is a "distortion". For that matter, "pagan" meaning non-Christian is a "distortion". So I think that a heading of " 'Hellene' comes to mean 'pagan' " or even " 'Hellene' as a derogatory word for 'pagan' " would be more appropriate than "distortion". --Macrakis 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It wasnt a scrictly neutral change from a secular to a religious meaning. Like I said above, while it was so in the beginning, after Christianity established itself pagans where looked upon with contempt, and in general, "Hellene" was closer to the meaning of "infidel" and "heathen" rather than "pagan". Just like "barbarian" earlierly originally meant "foreign speaker" but later corrupted itself to represent the "uncivilized". Similarily, "Hellene" had a certain derogatory meaning to it that even its contemporaries were aware of. On the other hand "Romans" never did, which I guess is kind of ironic, considering that one would expect the name of the conqueror would appear appaling, in some way at least, in the eyes of the conquered. Colossus 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand and agree entirely with what you're saying. I just think that the wording of the heading doesn't reflect that well. --Macrakis 17:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that User:Dogface has joined the discussion, I think it's worth re-opening. I think we all agree that the meaning of the word "Hellene" changed from identifying an ethnos to identifying a religion. Moreover, among Christians, it became a derogatory usage. Similarly, in the West, "pagan" originally meant simply "country-dweller", but later changed to be a derogatory term for non-Christians. But we do not say that the word "pagan" was distorted, simply that its meaning changed, and became derotagory. Perhaps the subtitle should be "Hellene becomes a derogatory word for 'pagan'" if it is important that the derogatory aspect be highlighted. --Macrakis 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, one can find writings from various Fathers of the Church that don't use the term Hellenas in that way. +MATIA ☎ 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that in some period (let's have dates!), the meaning Hellene = pagan/non-Christian and Hellene = Greek-speaker coexisted. Great. Let's get the info into the article, with cites of course. --Macrakis 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While this one and more info about Romios are very interesting, I'm afraid I don't have the time to dig these up (I had seen some sources back in August). The meaning Hellene=Greek (sometimes speaker, other times Greek descent) was more often used than Hellen=pagan. I do remember Paul's epistle, where he said that it doesn't matter your race or your social status (free or slave) etc, and I think that's the most important part. +MATIA ☎ 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

9th century:"Hellenes"= pagans?

At the article Maniots, one may read that, in the time of Eastern Roman Emperor Leo VI "the Philosopher" (886-912), the Maniots were deemed pagan "Hellenes" (practitioners of pagan Greek culture), not part of Romiosyni— followers of the "Roman" religion. The isolated Maniots became Christians in the 9th century. If correct, this should be added to the "Hellenes" section. --Wetman 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Though it was Constantine VII who said it, in a letter ("De Administrando Imperio", 49) to his son Romanus I, though he doesnt mention them as pagans. They had long converted to Christianity, and he probably calls them Hellenes because they converted later than the others. I'll do a quick search in my library later to make sure. Colossus 15:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To be added

Hellen the mythological patriarch of the Hellenes and Graecus (grandson of Deucalion, brother of Latinus and I think nephew of Hellen) [1] [2]

Perhaps "οι καλούμενοι τότε μεν Γραικοί, νυν δ' Έλληνες" Αριστοτέλης, Μετεωρολογικά, 352, should be translated into "who were called then Graeci, but now Hellenes" instead of "Graeci who later came to be known as Hellenes". MATIA 19:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My problem is the sentense before that. "Ώκουν γαρ οι Σελλοί ενταύθα και οι καλούμενοι..." If you have a better translation, by all means go ahead. Colossus 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "here lived Selli" or "here Selli dwelt" or something similar. MATIA 00:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Romanitas

After a point, probably before 1821, the term Romans (Ρωμαίοι) became Romioi (Ρωμηοί). The term was also used during the 20th century, "Ρωμιός αγάπησε Ρωμιά" was a popular song of Zambetas sung by Kokotas. We should also write something about the term Romanity (Ρωμιοσύνη). I've added some links, one more that I haven't yet added is Palamas and Romanity by John S. Romanides.MATIA 19:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Romanity, Romanitas is a concept with a history of its own, which deserves an article as thorough as this one. Even a stub would do. Anyone? --Wetman 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Romanity (Ρωμιοσύνη) means "Medieval Hellenism", and was the term the Byzantines used to refer to ancient Hellenism as it evolved in the middle ages. It shouldnt be confused with "Romanitas" which refers to the Latin culture of the Western Roman Empire. I guess an article is in order, and I do have something in mind for it, but I wont be able to contribute much for a while, as I'm too busy with work, and I'm already preparing a section about the word "Romans and Hellene" in the 20th century.

Romios (Ρωμιός) is the demotic (δημοτική) form of Romaios (Ρωμαίος), which is in katharevousa (καθαρεύουσα). Both terms were used interchangably ever since the early middle ages. Colossus 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In 212 aD emperor Caracalla issued Constitutio Antoniniana that gave all free-born men of the Roman Empire full Roman citizenship. Since then the Greeks (among others) were called Romans.MATIA 23:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Some notes from Herodotus (not necessarily to be added) about Greco-Persian Wars and more:

"if we shall subdue these and the neighbours of these, who dwell in the land of Pelops the Phrygian, we shall cause the Persian land to have the same boundaries as the heaven of Zeus; since in truth upon no land will the sun look down which borders ours, but I with your help shall make all the lands into one land, having passed through the whole extent of Europe. For I am informed that things are so, namely that there is no city of men nor any race of human beings remaining, which will be able to come to a contest with us, when those whom I just now mentioned have been removed out of the way. Thus both those who have committed wrong against us will have the yoke of slavery, and also those who have not committed wrong."

Herodotus, BOOK VII, 8 c alternate translation

on book 5, the Battle of Thermopylae is described. Leonidas part in greek history can be compared with Alexander's thus mentioning him is justified.

8:144 "the bond of Hellenic race, by which we are of one blood and of one speech, the common temples of the gods and the common sacrifices, the manners of life which are the same for all"

τὸ Ἑλληνικόν, ἐὸν ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ ὁμόγλωσσον, καὶ θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι ἤθεά τε ὁμότροπα

about Macedons:

after describing Alexander I of Macedon having killed the envoys of Darius I.

5:22 "these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I happen to know myself, and not only so, but I will prove in the succeeding history that they are Hellenes." MATIA 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking of a small comparison between Herodotus' above definition of Hellenikon, Isocrates', "Panegyricus", 50: "the title of Hellene a badge of education rather than of common descent" and Paul's Epistle to Galatians 2:27-28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" "27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. 28 οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ." MATIA 20:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Δούλος" is not bond, it's slave!  :-))) Chronographos 00:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added Hesiod and Caracalla. Later will add Hesiod references http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/fulltext-context?fulltext=Graecus&fk_files[]=35422 http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/fulltext-context?fulltext=Hellenic&fk_files[]=35422 http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/fulltext-context?fulltext=Hellen&fk_files[]=35422 probably after rearranging (+1) the footnotes and gathering more info. Hesiod has nice stuff on Macedon too. MATIA 19:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A word of caution on edits

We need to be extremely wary on further addition of information. Given the scope of the subject, this article can only be practical if it remains concise and that requires focus on the overview and not being extensive. It's already gone overboard with 38Kb of information, surpassing the maximum of 33Kb, and there's still one last section pending on the post-Independence era. Aspiring to squeeze as many facts as possible is counter-productive and wont improve the article but only overwhelm the reader with overinformation, while an average reader will very easily get bored away. I learned this when I first started this article. As large as the current version may appear, my first drafts were almost twice as large, the result of my attempts to include as many sources as possible. If you check the history of the pre redirect page (in Greek (name)) you'll notice that I had to cut down on large chunks of information in order to maintain simplicity and not lose the reader, which really is the only way to go. If information is deemed necessary to readability, then at least it should be integrated in the main body in a way without adding length to the article.

I removed the edits on Graecus in the "Hellenes" section because they're already mentioned in the first line of the "Greeks and Yunani" section, and repetitive information will only take up already much needed space. Colossus 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Article size is mostly a problem for editing using certain browsers. I agree on the ideas about cleanup, readability etc.

Graecus is indeed mentioned later (actually linked and Greeks mentioned as a Boeotian tribe), but Hellen is not mentioned at all and I believe I chose the proper place to cite Hesiod. It's probably the oldest source for both Greeks and Hellenes, considering that Hesiod recorded myths that existed before him.

This "Greeks were called after Graecus those who followed Hellenic customs, and Hellen named Hellenes those who were called Greeks" was a merge of two phrases from project gutenberg's translation. Perhaps you can rephrase it and put it back - for example "those who followed Hellenic customs were called Greeks after Graecus and Hellen renamed them to Hellenes". Hesiod's phrases also agrees with Aristotle's "Meteorologica, I, 352b".

That's my only objection, the rest changes on your edit seem fine to me :) MATIA 01:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice job Colossus! If you can add Ρωμηός/Ρωμιός on Romans.MATIA 15:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Objections ignored

I'm disappointed that no one bothered to comment my objection in the FAC, so I'll repeat it here.

There are two problems with the article:

• The overusage of footnotes is entirely unjustified. Don't wase footnotes for mere quotes and simple facts. It clutters the text and makes the article look overly academic and better referenced than it actually is.
• The title of the article is entirely misleading. Most of the historical information actually belongs in Greeks which has barely any history info at all. This article should focus on the actual names and the etymologies of those names, not of the history of the people behind those names. There's a lot of useful information here, but since it's not properly catalogued and no one searching for it would by logic choose to search this article fo it, it might simply go by fairly unnoticed. The structure is more like that of an essay than an encyclopedic article.

Try to keep in mind that we're writing not only for our own enjoyment, but also to provide others with properly structured and sorted information.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Citation is one of Wikipedia's three key features, next to NPOV and No original research. And since referencing doesnt interfere with the main body of the article, there's no reason to impose a limit to the number of footnotes. Providing the source of quotes and facts is vital for the verifiability of the article. Claiming Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia and not an academic source isnt argumentative. Who's to say that encyclopedias cant or shouldnt be authoritative? In any case, Wikipedia encourages users to make articles as verifiable as possible.
• The aim of Names of the Greeks is to provide a history about the names of the Greeks, not the Greeks themselves. That requires incorporation of Greek history as backround, but only to the degree necessary for the understanding of the main plot. I'll attest that the article of Greeks is not well written, but Names of the Greeks remains fundamentaly a differnt article. The article could be made more noticable by adding links to it in other key articles. It's already in the History of Greece template, so its obvious to anyone reading Greek history in Wikipedia, so perhaps we could begin by making it known in other parts of European history.

(unsigned post by Colossus)

• The footnotes do interfere with the main body and they are disruptive to the text, or I wouldn't complain. They're very obviously present in the text. The individual works of references themselves are supposed to carry the verifiability of the article, not trying to cite every other sentence. Academics never use footnotes in this way (except perhaps first-year students who don't know better) and this kind of overusage is a pretty obvious sign of inexperience concerning notes, not of authoritive knowledge of the subject. You achieve the latter simply by writing good article texts. Readers who actually are familiar with footnotes and understand their purpose are at best going to be annoyed and those who aren't familiar might be dazzled by the pseuo-academic look of the text, but probably won't understand its purpose and ignore it altogether. If you're including them to impress yourselves and other editors, at least use {{inote}}s.
• The article title "names of the Greeks" implies "the history behind the names of the Greeks", not "the history behind the people who were occasionally named Greeks". Especially when Greeks has so little discernable history information.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents—I agree with Colossus on both points. I think the use of the footnotes is perfectly acceptable, and is especially appropriate for a featured article. Also, I've got to object to the suggestion that somehow the use of footnotes in this article is done to dazzle and impress. Let's assume good faith here. And of course the general history of the Greeks must be discussed, but that's only incidental to the subject of the article. I'm not sure the objections were so much ignored as disagreed with. Hydriotaphia 10:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, you're arguing about something I'm not. The point was not whether to use notes at all, but to use them properly. It even says so in the FAC criteria; "...enhanced by appropriate use of inline citation." It's very obvious that whoever decideded to sprinkle all those mostly pointless footnotes in this article doesn't really understand their purpose. The point is not to simply attribute sources to any statement of fact or quote, but to attest something particularly complex and/or controversial. A quote is uncontestable (unless you're out to pick a fight), and so is the overwhelming majority of fact statements. Whether the explicit intent was to dazzle or impress is not something I'm going to comment on, but that people are overly dazzled and impressed is exactly my impression of footnote usage on Wikipedia. Most people still seem to think that "inline citation" is synonymous with "footnote" and that it is not only mandatory, but in fact the only way of actually attributing a source when preparing an FAC. No thought whatsoever seems to have been spent on how or why to use notes or citations.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Objections not ignored

Believe me Peter there are a lot of people who need those notes to verify the quotes. I've already mentioned that on the FaC discussion. MATIA 13:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read Wikipedia:Footnote3, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations, but I can't understand your objections. MATIA 13:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If they need to check the references, they'll check the reference section like they're supposed to. We're supposed to state the obvious in the actual text, not with footnotes and certainly not at the expense of readability for the overwhelming majority of readers that are not going to check the references themselves. And if you're trying to apply policy statements on this, please don't. There's nothing in the guidelines that actually proscribes certain footnote usage, but that's a very bad excuse to overuse them since this is a matter of avoiding instruction creep rather than a conscious attempt to favor any particular editing habit. I've already explained what the problem is (cluttering the text, needlessly over-referencing basic facts, making the article look pseudo-academic). You can ignore this argumentation or try to claim that there's nothing proscribing the usage (and hence it should be used), but then you'd clearly be missing the point.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Try to keep in mind that we're writing not only for our own enjoyment, but also to provide others with properly structured and sorted information", "cluttering the text, needlessly over-referencing basic facts, making the article look pseudo-academic". I still can't understand these. Could you possibly explain what you meant or give examples (how it is now and what's your suggested change)? If you check encyclopedias or dictionaries that are public domain like the 1911, you 'll see that many articles have such footnotes. MATIA 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We're all quite used to footnotes. Especially in a field where any statement is liable to challenge, liberal footnotes are to be expected. The objections here are specious. --Wetman 15:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wetman "we're all" includes yourself and the editors of this article. But since it's so blatantly obvious that neither you nor the editors do have experience of how to use footnotes, you should try to be a bit more reasonable. If stupid people question things they've obviously not bothered to look up, you should ignore them or point them to the proper source personally (at talkpages for example) rather than insist on unconstructive editing habits. Editing with only trolls and sticklers in mind is one of the best ways of spoiling an article.

MATIA, the point of a footnote is to either reference a fact statement that is particularly complicated or controversial (by normal, real life standards, not Wikipedia tinfoil hat-editor standards) or to add a quite extensive comment that would be too disruptive in the main body of the text. They are not intended to make pin-point references of every single imaginable statement or quote, no matter how blatantly obvious or easily-referenced it is. This most definetly includes quoting Homer or Thucydides or just mentioning a historical date. The reason for this is because it's pretty darned annoying to follow each footnote link just to discover that it's merely used to specify page numbers. Especially when referencing the same source over and over again. If you want to reference quotes, you can do it by citing directly in the text the first time ("In his Iliad, Homer writes...") and after that each quote can be accompanied by a "Homer writes..." or "According to Homer...".

Trying to defend this kind of substandard layout by claiming that we often get bothered by people who challange virtually any fact is not a particularly compelling argument. A bozo who comes along and questions something that is easily referenced in the bibliography is either not going to understand what a footnote is for or more likely will ignore it as well as the source it refers to. If you want to fight off fools, you'll have to do it the hard way (point them to the references and revert their edits), not by encouraging over-pedantic referencing. This is exactly what I mean by writing not for our own convenience but for the non-editing reader.

Here are some of the most obvious examples of overusage:

• Notes 10-12 - Three consecutive words are all footnoted, but cite the same work by Thucydides and this despite the fact that the sentence actually begins with "Thucydides calls..."
• note 14 - A reference to OED about the onomatopoetic nature of "barbarian", a fact so basic it might as well be skipped; only a troll would try to demand a visible reference to this kind of statement.
• note 23 - The sentence begins with "Isocrates declared in his speech Panegyricus..." and then it's double referenced with a footnote; pointless over-referencing.
• note 28 - An actual footnote refering to the the Bible. And I was actually using Bible footnotes as an ironic example before seeing this one...

An alarming amount of footnoted statements already seem to cite the source in the text, but for some reason footnotes have been added merely to specify page numbers. My estimate, without scrutinizing every single note, is that the maximum number of footnotes actually needed in the article is around 10. Probably less than that. If you're just going to specify page numbers, at least use {{inote}}s.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't the footnotes be put on a separate, linked page as an addendum? This should satisfy both sides Chronographos 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The footnotes are currently too obtrusive: agreed. But the exact references are handy for checking the context (or even the paraphrase). What do you think of links that take you directly to the source text -- "Homer says that they..."? Of course, that doesn't work for many other sources. Comment references like "Homer says " are invisible to the ordinary user. Perhaps Wikipedia simply doesn't have an appropriate mechanism currently -- ideas? --Macrakis 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

How on earth would an external link be less obtrusive than a footnote that links to the reference section? At least the footnote stays on the same page. Try to settle for collecting all the page references in the reference section next to the work that's been referenced. Only a tinfoil hat stickler would think of deeming this inadequate referencing. Try to assume just the barest minimum of good faith and intelligence on the part of the average reader. We don't have set the reference standard at grade school level.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter, whatever the merits of your position, I'd ask that you treat your fellow editors (and for that matter our readers) with a bit more respect. "Try to settle...", "tinfoil hat stickler", "try to assume..." are insulting and uncollegial. You also speak as though you are some sort of authority on scholarly writing. Many other people here also come from academic backgrounds (as you mention on your User page), have advanced degrees, have published in journals, etc. I'll leave substantive responses to some other time. --Macrakis 14:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Tinfoil hat stickler" was a reference to the kind of people who barge in on talkpages and demand references for pointless minutae and then turn out to have merely fleeting knowledge of the subject while still stubbornly contesting every piece of reference thrown against them. I doubt this would apply to any of you.

As for the rest, try to focus on the substantial and leave the prestige out of it. I would also appreciate if you didn't try so hard to make this personal by bringing up background. I'm obviously not using it as some sort of leverage in the discussion since I'm neiter an academic nor a historian. But I'm basing my knowledge on discussions with academics and of simple deduction from reading academic works. If you doubt my argumentation because I'm not authoritive enough, why don't you show this article to someone who works with footnotes for a living and ask for their opinion?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter, your whole argument revolves around the assumption that footnotes are required only when extensive comments too inapropriate for the main body are necessary. Oblivious to the fact that, (1) only original research can necessitate large body comments to the main text, and that (2) in historiography there's no such thing as "stating the obvious". For a subject that requires double and even triple-sourcing, over-referncing and scholasticism are words too easilty mouthed. So unless your an authoritative figure in this subject, you shouldnt be claiming that you're the sole possesor of the truth. Colossus 23:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've presented a lot of examples of how footnotes should be used and what you object to here is merely one of them. Adding lenghtly comments is one way of using footnotes, the others are to reference something which is particularly complicated or controversial or to point the way to a very non-obvious reference. The Bible and Homer are certainly not included in this definition. This is why several footnotes for just one book is merely distracting and double-referencing an inline citation makes no sense at all. Same thing with page references; if they're very obvious, don't use them. Again, "state the obvious" is a very good guideline for writing articles, but not for referencing them.

Writing history in an encyclopedia has absolutely no unique status when it comes to referencing here at Wikipedia. We're supposed to represent some sort of basic scholarly consensus in all fields of science, not to present new and unique perspectives on history or to pass for a conference paper.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you understand that this article doesn't try to present a new and unique prespective on history. Please try to understand why the rest of us, here and in the FAC page, don't share your opinion. The article could perhaps change later regarding style (aka those footnotes), yet this debate has gone too long and doesn't really help the evolution of the article. Your objections are in our minds and hopefully the article, later, shall be more presentable even according to your standards. With my regards, MATIA 18:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And again, there's no such thing as an obvious fact. A fact is either verifiable by a source or it isnt a fact. This article has many references because it relies disproportionaly more than usual on the display of historical testimonies and accounts and less on analysis and interpretation. To question the necessity of in-text quotes and tesimonies is to question the necessity of the article itself. Colossus 19:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have questioned neither the use of quotes nor the amount of references used, Colossus. I questioned the way double-references have been made first by citing the source in the text and then adding a very pointless footnote that points to the same source, except with a page number. Should I assume we're actually agreeing on this?

MATIA, you're doing exactly what I asked Macrakis not to do; trying to make it personal. Is this really the way you want to discuss things?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The page number is necessary for verification. Citing the title of the work isnt enough. And obviously I couldnt have put full citation in the main text body, because that would have been even more disruptive than those small numbers that appear on every footnote. Colossus 10:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter, certain phrases you used before might be interpreted as disrespect to other wikipedians. Although this, and probably every, article can be improved, the long debate about the footnotes doesn't help that improvement. I do agree with some of your comments and I will have them on my mind. I believe that eventually, some changes will be made that shall satisfy your concerns as well. With regards, MATIA 09:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Article name

I find the current name for this article somewhat ambiguous. "Names of the Greeks" (quite amusingly) brings to my mind: «Kostas, Maria, Nikos etc». Would "Names for the Greek nation" or "Names for the Greek people" not be more accurate/appropriate? I propose moving the article but would of course like some feedback before undertaking any such action. Please offer your opinions. (unsigned by User:Contributor175 at 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC))

In English, Kostas, Maria, et al. are "Names of Greeks" or "Greek Names", not "Names of the Greeks". --Macrakis 16:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. "The Greeks" presupposes "The Greek Nation", which is not identical to "Greeks" or "Greek", so further elaboration is unecessary. Plus, there's also the danger of reaching an sentense long title which really doesnt appeal. Colossus 17:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

When i saw this page, i had no idea what it was talking about. the title is very ambiguous. I simply thought "the names of what greeks?" SECProto 02:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

what about positron emission tomography - do you think most people know 'what it is talking about' just by looking at the title? No, and there's no reason why they should. --81.154.236.221 02:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That is true, however that particular title is not ambiguous. There is no thought of "What positrons?" or "what tomography???" (only "what are positrons?"). This article does have such questions, though they are answered by reading the first line of the article, just as 'what is PET'' is answered by reading the first line of that article. Once you are at the article the title does no harm, but when you are looking for it... Perhaps a more specific title incorporating the fact that the empire/whatever changed names throughout history. It will be difficult to do this without it getting too long though; e.g. Names of the Greeks throughout history or Past names of the Greek civilisation —deanos^{}{ Ł }{} 05:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I must agree wih Contributor175, this is a very confusing and ambiguous title. It sounds amateurish, and confusing. hdstubbs

I do not agree. The title conveys what it means to convey: There is an ethnic entity known in Modern English as "the Greeks" that has remained unchanged over 3300 years, only the names used to refer to it have changed. If the title means to convey that, it is good. If the title is NPOV is quite another matter. That the Akhaioi and the Classical Hellenes are somehow 'identical' to today's Greeks is a strongly nationalist position. It may be defended, but not implied as if it were a straightforward fact. This is a little bit as if we were to call Germanic tribes "Names of the Germans". 83.77.220.91 07:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While I'd certainly agree that the name is adequate, and I don't have any strong feelings either way regarding whether it should be changed or not, I think it could probably be improved, and whether you think it's:

1. POV (which I'd agree with; it's also vaguely humorous to spend an entire article discussing the names of a people when that very conflict is apparently resolved in the title of the article!),
2. confusing (which I'd agree with; "Names of the Greeks" could very easily be the name of a poorly-worded "List of Greek names" article, and if there was such an article, its similarity to this article would cause far too much confusion; the difference of a single "the" article is not a big enough difference), or
3. amateurish (which I'd also agree with; "Names of the Greeks" is dramatic and concise, but it's not Encyclopedic-sounding, as it's too vague and casual),

if you also feel it could be improved, should we start discussing possible names? After all, just complaining about the title won't do anything; once we have alternatives, we can start voting on whether to rename it to something. -Silence 07:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Historical names for ethnic Greeks?
• Historical names for Greek language speakers?
• doh, they may be more accurate, but clumsier than "Names of the Greeks". Maybe just Historical names for the Greeks, and trust the article text to resolve any pov issues?

09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Baad 09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy is more important than being 'clumsy'. Also, "Names of the Greeks" is extremely clumsy. Maybe we could use geography, Historical names for peoples of the Aegean Penisula or is it the southern tip of the Balkan Penisula? How about History of Greek nomenclature or History of Greek monikers? hdstubbs

Yes, I agree that we don't need to make the title beautifully poetic; our priority is informativeness and accuracy, so we only need to avoid "clumsiness" so far as it furthers those two purposes. Anyway, I like some of the suggestions so far, but also consider, if we're interested in a less dramatic change, Names of the Greek peoples; it wouldn't solve the "Greek-term bias" (though that's the least important of the three problems I mentioned above, since we're already using Greek throughout the encyclopedia anyway and putting it in the title too would be consistent; it's just not ideal), but it would fix some of the ambiguity, awkwardness and amateurosity of the original name will still keeping the title quite short. -Silence 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Silence is onto something. I like Names of the Greek Peoples and think we should change the article title. Anyone else, agree? hdstubbs

Size of notes

Why are the notes in 75% font? Ingoolemo ^talk 05:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

because of the time-honoured practice of printing footnotes smaller than the main text? 83.77.220.91 07:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Polyonymous

If you are going to use the word "polyonymous" in the opening paragraph, especially as the predicate of a sentence, then somebody should create a wiktionary definition for polyonymy and link to it. Babajobu 08:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

not to mention that the sentence is pointless. "the Greeks were called by many names. Perhaps this is the reason for them being so polynymous". hello? Baad 12:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: Polyonymous.

FocalPoint 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but that should be an encyclopedia article rather than dictionary entry. I'll move it to wiktionary and link. However, I also think that Baad has a point. Babajobu 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

polyonymous [[3]] and polyonymy [[4]] in wiktionary. --FocalPoint 15:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on Featured Article!

And I'm so glad because I never would have found this article without the feature. It's really amazing and immensely complete. Congrats! --Atlastawake 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article has been devoured by vandals. This article should have been protected during its display in the main page. Colossus 21:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colossus, congrats and congrats...and...do not feel hurt. Your literary child has grown up, understandably not in directions you expected/liked. Yet, do not forget, BE BOLD. Go back and make it better, using the input of all the ..."barbarian editors"..(vandals it too harsh a term). Do not revert the changes, use them and improve them.--FocalPoint 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But all changes were not the results of vandalism. I made a change today and certainly didn't consider it vandalism, yet it was undone (perhaps along with true vandalism). I don't think an encyclopedia article that refers to "the time of Jesus" is a NPOV any more than saying something was "the time of Santa Claus"; there is no historic evidence for the existence of Jesus. This isn't to spawn a religious argument--there may well be a Santa Claus, but there's no such proof at this point. There are many ways to make the appropriate point--noting the first century C.E., noting it was during the time the Bible claims Jesus lived, etc. Yes, I'm aware that most readers will interpret "the time of Jesus" as the early first century C.E. ... but can't we be more NPOV and use universal facts? Ready for any potential religious backlash... Indy 03:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"This article should have been protected during its display in the main page." -Absolutely not. All articles get severely vandalized during their stay as featured articles; it's incredibly easy to revert vandalism of all sorts, so such problems are minor at best. What matters is that one of the main reasons for the "featured article" concept at all is that it helps make really good articles even better by focusing the entire community's attention on a high-quality (but certainly very improvable, all Wikipedia articles have improvements to be made) article for a day. Most featured articles receive significant improvements as a direct result of not being protected for that day; vandalism is temporary, rarely lasting more than a minute or two, but good edits are forever. See User:Raul654/protection too. -Silence 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

x

there is no historic evidence for the existence of Jesus

Whether one believes Jesus is of any religious importance or not, there is a lot of historical evidence (yea, verily, even non-Christian) for his existence, though of course much of it is contested. Please do some research before throwing out such statements. ——Preost ^talk contribs 17:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

but can't we be more NPOV and use universal facts? - No, actually, we can't. There are no universally-agreed-upon facts regarding Jesus, and, as you pointed out, there's so little historical evidence even for his existence that everything regarding him must be considered suspect and is disputed by one party or another. You seem to be suggesting making it impossible to talk about him at all, or incredibly difficult, by going to ridiculous excesses with NPOV policy; we only have to make it clear what the various views are regarding Jesus to satisfy NPOV, we don't have to word every single line of every single page, even when explicitly detailing a certain group's view of Jesus, in a way that every group would. If we did, we'd have to make every sentence ten times as long. Usefulness to the reader is more important than not taking a position on anything. Also, significantly, almost all historians do agree that Jesus existed, including almost all secular ones. The view that he didn't exist is a significant, but decidedly minority, stance, and as such merits mentioning, but is not so prevalent or accepted as to necessitate totally avoiding any sentence structures that even vaguely suggest that he could have existed. The reason most historians believe Jesus existed, incidentally, is because it would be so much easier to take a real person and fabricate many events of his life than to invent someone from scratch. :) Someone who's heard one or two genuinely remarkable stories about Jesus, will be less likely to doubt nine or two fake ones he hears.

Ready for any potential religious backlash... - But not for some non-religious backlash? :P

there is a lot of historical evidence (yea, verily, even non-Christian) - Wrong. Almost all of the evidence is Christian (the canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). There's a little non-Christian evidence, but most of it's heavily disputed and/or very minor and brief. See historicity of Jesus for details. -Silence 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think my grammar was unclear. I wasn't suggesting that there is "a lot" of non-Christian historical evidence for Jesus' existence, but rather that there is a lot of such evidence and that some of it is even non-Christian. (I linked to historicity of Jesus in my original comment, as you can see.)

In any event, it is, I think, a decidedly anti-historical bias which summarily dismisses one particular group's historical records simply because one does not share their beliefs. That is, Christians are just as much historical witnesses as pagans are. Especially when dealing with ancient historical records, there really is no such thing as an unbiased source. ——Preost ^talk contribs 16:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, my fault on that misreading. And yes, I agree that Christians are no more or less reliable than devotees of any religion writing about a central spiritual figure of theirs. Especially back then, most "historians" were pretty damned loose with the facts. It's not that the Gospel accounts aren't suspect, it's that lots of things are suspect; the content of the Gospels has more to do with how widely the Gospels are considered inaccurate than the form or origin; if they didn't claim miraculous events, there would probably be much fewer disputes over their accuracy today. Sadly, they do, and so the disputes shall continue until the other side admits its wrong and goes home. :) -Silence 21:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Greeks and Cretes

It is possible that the name "Greece" (and Graecia) may derive from word "Crete".

Cretes (or else, Cretans, Kretans) is the first people that had trading contacts with Italy (i.e. Latins, Etruscans, Ausones etc), in Minoan period (3rd and 2nd millennium BC). Originally, Cretes lived at coasts of Middle Greece (Aetolia, Attica) as Curetes or Graecoi or Graecians or Graëces. Later, they migrated to island Crete (as Cretans or Minoites) and to Caria, in Asia Minor, (as Cares).

Italians (and the other Europeans) keep this original name for posterior Helenes, too. So, did Asians with name of first Greek tribe (i.e. the Ionians) that they knew (through trade).

--IonnKorr 04:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Here could be discussed the edits recently suggested about the main article. Deucalionite introduced some changes that seemed to disagree with the main article itself. Perhaps these or some of these changes could be listed here so they can be debated. Colossus 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Romioi (or Romaions) and not just Romans

Seems that Wikipedia prefers anything that "does not conflict with the overall article" instead of historical accuracy. Also, just because an article becomes famous, does not mean it is perfect or that its content are immutable. In fact, the absence of the Romaic identity being a specifically Greek identity of the Middle Ages shows that the article needs some good historically accurate tweaking. So, let us put things in their proper context.

I know that the sources I placed (albeit not good ones I agree though I can provide better) do refer to the existence of a Romaic identity and not just a Roman identity. Aldux stated that what is important in the articles I edited (Names of the Greeks and Byzantine Empire) is historiography. Personally, "historiography" has led many in Western European scholarship to deem the Byzantine Empire as a "collapsing civilization" since its birth. Even if one were to deem the Eastern Roman Empire as Greco-Roman, it does not change the fact that the majority of its inhabitants were Greeks and that the Greeks had a specific name that they used to refer to themselves at the time. That name being "Romioi" (or Romaions or whatever name used other than just Roman).

To be honest, I prefer social analysis rather than historiography. The Greek mentality is of the utmost importance in better understanding how the Greeks perceived themselves throughout their history. The Greek mentality was, and has always been, dualistic. In the case of the medieval Greeks, they called themselves "Romioi" (and I don't care if the English language has never seen the word "Romioi" for it does not change the fact that that is what the Greeks called themselves during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages). The question is, why? The reason why the Greeks called themselves "Romioi" was because they maintained their citizenship as Romans, but at the same time they did not want to forsake their own Hellenic roots. Even though the meaning of the term "Hellene" meant "pagan" at the time, its other meanings (an ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic Greek) were merely transferred into the new word "Romios." So, "Romios" came to mean "a Roman citizen of Greek descent/culture/language and follower of Eastern Orthodox Christianity." See the dualism?

I know that the Byzantine Empire was deemed by its administrators as the "Empire of the Romans" (Imperium Romanorum). However, a social analysis study requires that one distinugish the difference between people in a political adminstration and people who are outside of a political administration. I am sure people already know that Eastern Roman imperial politics were very complex and secretive (to an extent). Now, why would some (or even many) Byzantine officials want to deem their empire as just Roman or their citizens as simply Romans? To put things in their proper social and political context, Byzantine officials were mainly focused on how to best increase or consolidate the sphere of influence (whether directly or indirectly) of the Eastern Roman Empire. Using the phrase "Empire of the Romans" instead of "Empire of the Greco-Romans" or "Empire of the Romioi" shows that Byzantine officials wanted to offset foreign imperial plans of expansion into Roman and ex-Roman territories (in a sense, to make foreign empires still think that the Byzantines were just like the very powerful old Romans capable of defeating armies and maintaining territories for vast periods of time). Moreover, it was a phrase that had prestige at the time even though the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. Constantinople was the new Rome of the time and the officials were simply taking a bath in all of the glory. The Byzantine officials would use the phrase to either follow in old Roman traditions or to simply maintain an aura of power that would emanate beyond Byzantine territories. To put it simply, the officials could care less what name they used just as long as it served their political, economic, and social agendas.

Byzantine officials state, for instance, that the citizens of the Byzantine Empire are just Romans. Just because it is official or because there was an official Byzantine consensus on the matter, does that make it true? Not really. The Greeks were aware of who they were and called themselves Romioi even though their officials still preferred to call their citizens "Romans." Now, you find yourself in the time of Heraclius' administration. Heraclius made the administrators use Greek instead of Latin, but that did not automatically lead to Greeks changing their language from Latin to Greek. In fact, Greeks were still speaking Greek way before Heraclius was crowned emperor in 610 A.D.

Look, I have no intention of causing needless trouble. However, I am for historical accuracy and even if that accuracy leads to the sacrificing of article aesthetics, then it is for the better. Better educating people about history when they use the Internet is a more important cause than merely focusing one's energies on making articles look pretty. Even though aesthetics are important, it should come second to historical accuracy. Over and out.

- Deucalionite 12/6/05 9:47 P.M. EST

I might have written somewhere before that, Romans (Ρωμαίοι) has evolved into Romioi (Ρωμιοί). I have not seen the term Romaions before, but I think it's the same thing we 're talking about. If you read the article more carefully, you'll see that those people weren't Romans with the original meaning of the term, but they used that term and gave it a new meaning (after all the people of Roman Empire got Roman Citizenship), the meaning of that identity you describe. Take the time and read the external links of the article, and the article itself, carefully. And I must note that the aesthetics in a Featured Article are very important - what you should have done in the first place, is write these paragraphs here, instead of changing parts of the article that you might have misunderstood. Perhaps some things need clarification but if you believe that this article uses the term Romans with a very strict sense, I think you have misunderstood something. +MATIA ☎ 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood anything (if I did, then I apologize). Granted I may have caused some confusion with my placing of the term "Romaion" in the article, but the article itself was just not clear in distinguishing the acutal difference between Roman and Romios. Yes, I agree that I should have written first in the discussion page before making changes to the article. However, one can discuss forever and not accomplish anything for the sake of historical accuracy. Also, a Featured Article should be based on both the quality of its content and the quality of its aesthetics. However, if aesthetics supercede content and people end up reading beautiful lies, half-truths, or any vague information then what is the point in even discussing about anything in the first place?

The reason I found the article to use the term "Roman" in the strict sense was because it failed to specifically provide information about the Greek social mentality and its reaction to Emperor Caracella's decreeing of all free peoples in the Roman Empire as Roman citizens. The Greeks did not suddenly call themselves Romans only to realize then after that they were not really Romans. They called themselves Romioi automatically after Caracella's decree for the specific reasons I have stated previously. I may have misunderstood some things, but it does not change the fact that the article did not explain very well the existence and development of the Romaic identity based on the Greek social mentality of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

I appreciate you (and others) not altering the edits I have made. Just so you know, I have nothing against aesthetics or anyone striving to make an article look beautiful. However, historical accuracy is historical accuracy that should not be overlooked Featured Article or not, Wikipedia policy or not. Historical accuracy should come first, aesthetics next, and a balance of both to create something that is both intellectually appealing and beautiful to the eyes at the same time. Priorities and dualism. Nothing more and nothing less. If you disagree with me, then that is fine. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/7/05 12:11 P.M. EST

Romioi is just the English transliteration of the Greek name Ρωμιοί, and Romaioi of Ρωμαίοι, each representing respectively the demotic and katharevousa of the language. Romans is the English translation of the same terms. Distinguishing between Romans and Romaions creates a false apprehension of the reality. The Greeks did not suddenly call themselves Romans only to realize then after that they were not really Romans. They called themselves Romioi automatically after Caracella's decree for the specific reasons I have stated previously. I still dont understand the point you're trying to make here. What's the difference between Romans and Romioi, besides the obvious lingual variation. Where the people you call Romans and Romioi not one and the same? If so, there's no need in re-inventing the wheel. THe standar English term for desrcibing the Greeks in the middle ages, is Byzantines or Romans. Why the need to diverge from it? Colossus 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I know I caused confusion with the whole "Romaion" thing and I already apologized. However, it does not mean that I am creating a false apprehension of reality. In fact, without the Greek social mentality, how can you expect to better understand the identity of the Greeks during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages? "Romans" and "Romioi" were not the same thing. Granted Greeks and Romans shared many commonalities, it does not change the fact that both the Greek East and Latin West took separate paths.

Also, just because the English want to call the Greeks "Romans" (so that they have an easier time with conducting their own form of "historiography") it does not mean that they are right in doing such a thing. Moreover, the difference between a Roman and a Romios is essential because it takes into account the Greek social mentality and shatters any attempts by "scholars" to depict the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire as just another general Orthodox Christian populace (with no cognizance of their predecessors as if the Greeks of the Byzantine Empire forgot all about Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, etc.).

In short, I am not re-inventing the wheel and I am not trying to falsify history. If I am diverging from an English term by emphasizing the presence of the term "Romioi", then I don't care. If the English want to call us Greeks "Romans" and ignore the historical fact that the Greeks called themselves "Romioi", then that is their problem. Simple. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/8/05 2:45 P.M. EST

Deucalionite, this article didn't say, before your additions, that the Romioi were Romans with the original meaning of the term Romans, but it described how the term Romans evolved. What would be interesting is when the term Romios, and not Romaios, was first used. The Greeks self-identified as Romaioi and later it became Romioi. Where do you think the term Romios derives from? +MATIA ☎ 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deucalionite, you say "The Greeks...called themselves Romioi even though their officials still preferred to call their citizens 'Romans.'" Presumably if the officials were speaking Latin, they would call the citizens (whether they were Greek-speaking or Latin-speaking) 'Romani'. Now what exactly was the word that a Greek-speaking official would use for Greek-speaking Roman citizen? And what would he use for a non-Greek Roman citizen? What word would a non-official use in those cases? --Macrakis 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you asked Macrakis. Prior to the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610 A.D. - 641 A.D), the Greek officials would deem all members of the Eastern Roman Empire as "Romaioi" (Romans) even though the officials were aware of the fact that the majority of the people in the empire were of Greek descent, culture, etc. Remember, the Greek officials prior to Heraclius only called their citizens "Romans" being that they wanted to maintain an aura of political and military strength in the turbulent times of both Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. If the officials found a different term they could have used to name their citizens (or to themselves) that could increase their political capabilities, then they would choose that term over "Romans." Even though the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D., the fact that there were still old "Romans" (with a legacy of being powerful, highly-disciplined warriors capable of maintaining territories for centuries) lying about in certain lands made foreign empires think twice about invading the Eastern Roman Empire (even though many barbarian tribes were thrilled over the "up-for-grabs" concept after the sacking of Rome in 410 A.D. by the Goths). Of course, scholars assume that the Eastern Roman Empire simply regressed to its Greek soul as a result of the contributions of Emperor Heraclius. Yet, social reality dictates that the Eastern Roman Empire had a Greek soul before, during, and after its birth.

As for non-officials, they would consider the majority of the people in the Eastern Roman Empire as "Romioi" and not simply "Romans" being that the latter term was too political. The non-officials were intelligent enough to know that everyone was not the same in terms of background and that a mere political title just did not do enough justice to help define different peoples. Being that the Greeks were the majority population at the time, they were referred to as "Romioi." Of course, other peoples of non-Greek backgrounds were called "Romans" but again, only in the political sense of the word. For everyday social and economic affairs, the foreign minorities living in the Eastern Roman Empire were given names that were based on their respective backgrounds (i.e. Armenians were Armenians, Jews were Jews, Egyptians were Egyptians, etc.).

In short, officials before Heraclius used the term "Romans" while everyday people in the empire used "Romioi" way before Heraclius was crowned in 610 A.D. I hope I have answered your questions Macrakis. If not, then I will conduct more research and hopefully give you a better answer. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/13/05 10:57 A.M. EST

The entire discussion about Romaioi and Romioi is pedantry. Romioi is simply the demotic version of Romaioi. And since there is no equivalent of a demotic and katharevousa in the English or any other language, now or during the middle ages, Romans is the translation for both. Colossus 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Colossus, even if "Romioi" is simply the demotic version of the term "Romaioi" it does not change the fact that the Greeks knew of the existence of both words, used them, and more importantly, knew the difference between both terms and chose the one that best suited their identity at the time. Greeks preferred the term "Romioi" over "Romaioi" because it transcended political connotations. The Greek language today may be divided between katharevousa and demotiki, but the Eastern Roman Empire had the "koine" (or common) language. It does not matter what word modern linguists want to use to call the Greeks of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. For all I care, they could use the most generalizing term they could find. However, no matter what name they ultimately choose, it should not be taken as "fact" that the Greeks called themselves a generalizing term when social reality dictates that the term does not reflect their mentality. Greeks, throughout their social history, always preferred to adapt to change while preserving their core ethnic, cultural, racial, linguistic, and religious/moral values. Calling the Greeks something that does not truly reflect their social mentality and history is not right nor is it historically accurate. One needs to distinguish the difference between linguistics and social affairs. Granted, both are correlated. Granted, both help to reinforce one's understanding of both languages and societies. However, the basic differences must be maintained otherwise scholars will end up calling people names that do not reflect their backgrounds. Nice talking to you Colossus. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/13/05 11:14 A.M. EST

I think we should consider putting an end to this never ending discussion and procede to restore the original text. Covering himself with big words like "historical accuracy" and "mentality" Deucalionite appears to have done nothing else than trying to impose his views, which nobody else seems to substain. What's worse, were still waiting for decent sources that can justify such revolutionary statements, which no important scholars appears to have ever said (and I know what I'm speaking about, because I did a university exam of Byzantine history and have always been interested in the subject). Aldux 18:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit in question: to me it seems mostly like redundant or not properly worded clarifications. If someone reads Constitutio Antoniniana he can learn the details about Caracalla and the extension of Roman citizenship from Rome to the whole Empire. The phrase around "dualistic connotation", is not understandable to me. I don't know what else to say. What do others think? +MATIA ☎ 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Aldux, your comments are very rude and very useless. MATIA told me that you were a good administrator/editor. Even though I did not like being badgered by your constant removal of my edits, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. However, your statements prove that you are very disrespectful and very dishonorable. You assume that I am a liar just because I have a natural tendency to use sophisticated terminology. Do you think I use intelligent words just to humor you or to simply show off? I have an honor code for God's sakes. Of course, you would not believe me because you assume that I am here solely to impose my views, when my purpose here is to ensure that Greek history is not distorted by "historiographers" and so-called "scholars." I know I have made mistakes, but at least I have admitted to my mistakes and even apologized (trust me, I have not seen many users in Wikipedia apologize for their mistakes when it comes to very heated conversations). What have you done to prove somehow that your statements have some meaning behind them other than to merely write things only to take up space on a discussion page?

Also, you assume that because you took a test or wrote a paper on the Byzantine Empire that no one else that is not an administrator has done the same. I myself have written a university paper on the Eastern Roman Empire, but I transcended the typical Western European research methodologies. Instead of putting all of my faith in literary texts, I merely cited literary texts and correlated them with social analysis studies of the Eastern Roman Empire in order to enrich the information I provided on my paper.

Also, there is nothing "revolutionary" about knowing how the Greeks think. How is it possible for Western European "scholarship" to preach about how well it knows about the great thinkers of ancient Greece and yet at the same time consider medieval Greece both to be non-Greek and unworthy of study? Hypocrisy? I think so. Western European "historiography" does not want to admit that there is a pattern in Greek social history that is based on the Greek mentality.

You may be an administrator with the ability to do things I cannot do on Wikipedia. However, just because you are an administrator does not mean you are always right. Nor does it mean that you have the right to consider other intelligent people as liars just because you might experience some Cognitive Dissonance from the truthful statements I make.

I am sorry MATIA, but I disagree on your positive rating of Aldux. Yet, I will help you better understand the meaning of the term "dualistic connotation." I am sure you are aware of the term dualism, right? In short, dualism entails the alternating or even merging of two identities. In the case of the Greeks, the term "Romios" was dualistic in the sense that on the one hand, Greeks considered themselves politically as Roman citizens, but also considered themselves Christian Hellenes on the other hand. I hope this explains what I have been talking about all this time. If you are still confused, then I will be more than happy to elaborate. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/13/05 3:45 P.M. EST

Yes, I must admit I was a bit brutal, but I don't remember ever calling you a liar. I do beleve you're wrong, and this appears to be the opinion of everybody who left a message on this talk. And this rant against me won't change the opinion of anybody. The problems remain the same, and you still haven't given any decent and verifiable sources. And I really loved the "conspiration theory" piece: all the world, except you, suffers from "cognitive dissonance". And if you really think today historians feel contempt for Byzantine history, of that you can only accuse your ignorance. But of one thing I have to thank you - you promoted me to Admin! I must confess I haven't heard of the promotion ;-) Aldux 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are the sources. If you need more, then just ask. Or don't. I don't care for if you want respect from me try apologizing first and then we can see eye-to-eye in some way.

Sources: 1) [5], 2) Antonucci, Michael. (2001 June). Between 330 and 1453, the Byzantine empire survived through unconventional tactics that emphasized flexibility. Military History. p. 12. (flexibility of military tactics in the Eastern Roman Empire often reflected the social flexibility of the Romaic or medieval Greek mentality. Thus, my statements about the social dualistic mentality of the Greeks in medieval times is not incorrect for dualism is based on flexibility). Enjoy. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/14/05 3:57 P.M. EST

Perhaps Deucalionite means the westerners who are influenced by Gibbon or Hieronymus Wolf. +MATIA ☎ 21:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I had the impression that you are an admin Aldux - oops :) But you are indeed a good editor.

I think Aldux strongly disagrees with the phrase "it soon lost its connection with the Latins". And I think that this phrase is wrong. Perhaps Deucalionite wanted to say that the term Roman broadened and was not as exclusive as it was in the past, but this doesn't mean, for example, that people of the city of Rome weren't Romans anymore. On the other hand, Deucaliniote is correct at his point that Romios was pretty much identified with the Christians (I think the article already mentions the connection with the similar term used by Turkish people). Perhaps it is the right time to start a good article about the term Romios? We already have "main" articles that Names of the Greeks point to, like Achaeans etc. +MATIA ☎ 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Matia, you're too good :-) To be honest, I'm only an editor like thousands, and relatively recent also; and I never even went near to write a featured article or an article that could be proposed for that :-) As for writing that "Romaios" meant "Christian" you're wright; I'lll say more, it meant orthodox (unheretical, that is) Christian. I think it was C. Mango who wrote about this, but I'll search for the book. What I doubt is the distinction between "Romaios" and "Romios" has really sense, if it's not, like Colossus said, pedantry. Ciao! ;-) Aldux 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try a partial revert later today. +MATIA ☎ 13:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the term Romania at the 4th century

I've seen somewhere that Saint Athanasius of Alexandria used the term Romania (Ρωμανία) for the Eastern Roman Empire around 400 AD and I found at CCEL the phrase "With regard to the wider question, Athanasius expresses reverence for that bishopric `because it is an Apostolic throne,' and `for Rome, because it is the metropolis of Romania'". +MATIA ☎ 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Romioi, Romios, etc.

Someone can start these entries in Wiktionary and link them into the Wiki article's text. Wiktionary allows for a detailed treatment. In Wiktionary, the entries should be in Greek characters. Alexander 007 02:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Georgians call Greeks "Wise"

I've added a couple of sentences in the beginning of the article regarding how Georgian people used to call (and still call) Greeks. These sentences were taken exactly as they appear in the page for Greece under the heading "Name". I think that apart from being very interesting that Georgians think of Greeks as Wise people, it also completes the list of how people around the world call Greeks and gives more meaning to the word "polyonymous". I am open for discussion on this change and wait for your comments. NikoSilver 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentences need references. They appear in the lead section of a FA. Please add inline citations to reliable supporting sources. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Selloi, Yauna

The article is not very clear on that. Who exactly was called Selloi by whom? Also, why is the "Iones" name in the East lumped together with the "Graeci" name in the West? I see no reason why there should not be separate "Graeci" and "Iones" sections. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is partly because we don't know exactly who the Selloi were, and it is not clear the Alexandrians did either. Septentrionalis

Romaios

This has been removed from after Caracalla:

The new term was created in order to establish a dualistic connotation that represented the Greeks' Roman citizenship and their Hellenic ancestry, culture, and language. Moreover, the new term represented the Greeks' religious affiliation toward Orthodox Christendom signifying that the Christianization of the Roman Empire led to only the religious vitiation of the name Hellene.

Romaios is standard Greek for Roman, and can be attested since Polybius. Please do not replace this kerfluffle. Septentrionalis 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Before starting another edit war, read WP:POINT. talk to +MATIA 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What does WP:POINT have to do with it? Pmanderson was making a substantive edit in good faith. You apparently disagree with it, but you have not explained why. Let me explain why I agree with Pmanderson. The "was creating" wording says that "Romaios" was consciously coined to have a particular meaning. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and it seems inplausible. "Establish a dualistic connotation" is barely English, and it is not clear what it means. It is agreed that "Hellene" meant "pagan", and so was unusable. --Macrakis 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

references

Is there a problem with the references in the last paragraph of "Hellene" comes to mean "pagan"? I mean it seems that the references 32,33,34 are wrong. Have 33 and 34 been swapped? And about 32, I can't find this sentence in the original texte of the Acts of the Apostles (neither in English nor in French).
I try to translate this article for the french WP, so that it would be very nice if you can help me. (You can also get in touch wih me there) -Thanks

Indeed, it appears 33 and 34 are in each other's place. I may have overlooked this when I originally made the footnotes. They need to be switched back. I'll try to do it later when I get the time. About 32, I dont think the Acts of the Apostles is a relevant source. The footnote refers to Against Julian by Pope Gregorly, correctly. Colossus 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Other sources

I have much respect for this article because it focuses on the story of specific names, rather than on the Greek nation per se. If you do not mind, there are just a few words in the article I would like to change and perhaps add one or two short examples.

I also have a book that may interest contributors, Οι Περιπετειες των Εθνικων Ονοματων των Ελληνων (The adventures of the national names of the Greeks), Panagiotis K. Christou, Kyromanos Thessaloniki 1993 (first published in 1960). Politis 12:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the sources I used when I wrote the original article last year. Among others, it was a major one. Panagiotis Christou is very comprehensive. What did you have in mind changing? Colossus

Good initiative. Nothing I want to modify right now. I think it would be good to have other Greek topic pages linked to this one and perhaps more links attached to this one. Politis 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of "AD" and the capitalisation of "pagan"

User:Semioli claims in his edit summary that these are dictated by the Manual of Style; I will refer to Manual the prove this user's claims wrong:

User:Semioli claims: Avoid AD when redundant (see MOS)

In the instances where AD was removed it was far from redundant. The MOS on dates states:

Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, [[1 BC]]–[[1|AD 1]] or [[1 BCE]]–[[1|1 CE]].

In this case, the subject of the article spans at least three millenia and the instances where the AD was removed are close to the border of the two eras. In fact, it cannot be inferred from the context which of the two era the date belongs to, unless the reader happens to be knowledgeable on the subject.

User:Semioli claims: "Pagan", as opposed to "Christian", is capitalized)

Quoting the Manual of Style:

Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter.

My objection is that the term "pagan" in the context of the article refers to no single religion. It refers to a variety of religions practiced at the time, sharing certain characteristics; the sets of entities worshipped by each one were different and so were the respective sets of beliefs. Than religious syncretism was prevalent in the Hellenistic world (people following more than on religion at the time despite contradicting beliefs) does not render them a single religion. I thus argue that the term here is generic, thus capitalisation is wrong. Whether today a religion exists which, which calls it self "Paganism" (in which case the capitalisation would be warranted for it and its followers) is largely irrelevant.

I have thus proceeded to edit the article accordingly. Contributor175 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The section of MoS you cited does not say that if there are both BC and AD years, you can use AD everywhere. It says that you should "normally" avoid AD, except when you write intervals, such as 1 BC–AD 1. In this case you are referring to an interval spanning over the change of eras, so you can use AD. "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini", which means that if you have a reference to the first year of the Common Era in a sentence, it is 1, even if in another sentence you have 1 BC. The reason why the MoS section you cited says "normally" is because in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) there is the section about "Years centuries and decades", in which the years/decades/centuries of the Common Era are never used with "AD". The meaning of all this is that you should use AD only in intervals such as 63 BC–AD 14.

--Semioli 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what the quoted section of the WP:MOS dictates about the usage of "AD" obviously differs from the one I previously provided. I acknowledge that the text can be seen as supporting your position, and it may well be that you are right on this after all. If that convention is followed without exception, then, in the absence of BC or AD, the reader must assume that the year is AD, so any ambiguity is eliminated. Conversely then, editors would always have to append BC to a year belonging to the ancient era (no matter how obvious the context), or else the reader would have to assume that what is meant is AD. The described convention would indeed be very efficient. However I am still not entirely convinced that it is the only possible interpretation of the MOS and the text could still be taken to support my (initial) interpretation, which I am currently reevaluating. I would welcome some other opinions on this matter as well, before I (or you) go back and remove those ADs once again (which we may well end up doing).

Regards, Contributor175 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure of my interpretation, but if you fell confident otherwise, it is fine with me. I don't really understand how anyone could possibly read "In 212, Emperor Caracella's Constitutio Antoniniana granted all free people in all Roman provinces citizenship", and wonder if it is 212 AD or BC. Or how "a historian of the 5th century" can be interpreted as 5th century BC, if the last reference to BC era is 5 sections before this sentence.

I shall stop editing this article on this matter, but find someone you consider reliable and actually ask him/her an opinion.

--Semioli 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Juadea, the New Testament and generality of the term "Hellenes"

Hello, I am writing in regard to the recent change initiated by myself at the header section of this (great) article. Before my edit it read:

During the time of Jesus, the term shifted and any person of non-Jewish faith was called "Hellene"

I thought that this narrowed down a generalized usage of the term to Jews and their views alone. I am not an expert on the subject but I do suspect that by that time, a "Hellene" was anyone in the Hellenistic lifestyle (theaters, gyms etc) and religion (the syncretized Greco-Roman religion?). So I changed the original to:

During the time of Jesus, the term had shifted to denote anyone who embraced a Hellenistic lifestyle. In the scriptures of the New Testament any person of non-Jewish faith was called "Hellene".

Pmanderson further changed this to:

In Hellenistic Judea, the term had shifted to denote anyone who embraced a Greek lifestyle; the Books of the Maccabees so refer to Jews who had adopted Greek culture. . In the scriptures of the New Testament any person of non-Jewish faith was called "Hellene".

I feel that this, new version, again brings the article to the former, narrowed down view of the term. Again, I note that I am not an expert on the subject, but it would seem to me rather odd if this usage was confined to Judea and Jews alone.

By the way, a citation about St Paul's intentions on using "Hellene" would be the famous "there is neither Greek nor Jew" phrase.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know of no primary source comparable to II Maccabees showing the use of Hellene for any other people in the Hellenistic world. (The Romans, from outside that world, certainly did not use Graecus for any non-Roman.) We should not make claims for which there is no evidence.

As for Colossians 3:11, it is novel interpretation of a primary source to assert that St. Paul thought that all non-Jews were Greeks. It may be possible to find a secondary source which thinks he did; but cite it. (And when found, explain from it why St. Paul spoke of barbarians and Scythians in the same verse.) Septentrionalis 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking into account the "Hellene" comes to mean "pagan" section in the article, it could probably make more sense to rephrase the particular part of the header section to reflect this idea of a "Hellene" being a religious-cultural identifier rather than a national or ethnic one. I am not disputing at all the truthfulness of your version of the phrase. I just think it is too particular and narrowed-down to be in the header section. Perhaps it would be better if the phrase in question was written along the lines of:

During the first centuries AD the term "Hellene" shifted and any non-Barbarian person, not of Christian or Jewish faith was called "Hellene".

Of course this is far from "brilliant prose", but if we work on it we could reach a better version. What do you think? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The currents you are seeking to combine are

• A spread of the term Hellene (and its translations), of uncertain but Hellenistic date, as used by non-Greeks.
• The conversion of Hellene to mean "pagan", almost entirely within Greek, fairly sharply about the 5th century AD.

Combining these two is the sort of novel synthesis which should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. If someone has suggested the trend, cite them; but don't make the citation more than its support will justify. Septentrionalis 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And the phrasing is regretable. Non-barbarians were always called Hellenes; the question is: who is a barbarian? and that did shift. Septentrionalis 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article on :fr

Hello. A translation has been done on :fr and the article was subbmitted to be a featured article. Some problems of pertinence were raised and some contributors think this article should not be FA. If you can read french, please visit fr:Wikipédia:Proposition articles de qualité/Noms des Grecs, otherwise, you have to know that many find this article POV because it presents only the "official history" written by Greeks after their war of independance (and which is quite far of the reality). --NeuCeu 09:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With my poor understanding of french I understand that there have been raised objections regarding NPOV, like (if my translation is correct) "...a constant confusion between the terms greek-speaker and greek. The idea that permeates the article is that of continuity of the Greek people since antiquity. This idea is the foundation of the contemporary greek state but it is unacceptable". More detailed objections are raised further down.

In my humble opinion the whole argument suffers from one particular shortcoming: while the acceptance of continuity can be intuitive (language, religious practices, customs, etc), its rejection has to strive with historical contexts to always define what it means by "continuity". In a sense it has to struggle not only with the question "Who is a Greek?" but also with the question "What do we mean by saying Greek" and ultimately with the question "What is a People (or a Nation or a Culture or a Civilization, see where this can lead?), anyway?". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this debate is kinda silly, as Michalis noted above. To illustrate that, I refer you to a previous edit-summary debate over that issue at Greeks. There are plenty of third-party academic sources that do not contest this 'continuity' (whatever that may mean). To note a few:

• Wilkinson, H. R. (1951). Maps and Politics; a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. pp. p.16. LCC DR701.M3 W5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  

  There was yet another centre of Hellenism in the Balkans, in Constantinople itself, for the Greeks were not only heirs to Hellas, but also to Byzantium

• "Britannica online". Greece.
  

  From ancient Greece the modern country inherited a sophisticated culture and a language that has been documented for almost three millennia. The language of Periclean Athens in the 5th century BC and the present-day language of the Greeks are recognizably one and the same; few languages can demonstrate such continuity. From the Byzantine Empire it has inherited Eastern Orthodox Christianity and from Ottoman rule attitudes and values that continue to be of significance, not least in shaping the country's political culture.

I am placing all that here, and hope someone posts them in the fr:wiki, since I am not so confident about my French, and since my account there is generally inactive. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also add, that what is 'contested' is not the 'continuity' (again, whatever that may mean), but this exact 'lack of continuity'. More specifically, academicians and authors who have disputed it have been very emphatically criticized and discredited by the international academic community for their theories. Namely:

• Fallmerayer, read his article, and recently,
• Arnaiz-Villena

I just posted a link to this talk in fr:wiki. •NikoSilver• 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is no contest about the continuity, nor is there a problem about "Greeks" as a nation (as French people, we understand that more than any other people ; see the discussion page and the deletion request of French people). The only problem is that some POV stances remains and it is difficult for the reader to identify them. It should be written that some concepts are directly inherited from the Greek independence war.

About the language : we point that it cannot be used to define a Greek, as notable exceptions exist. For example Kitsos Tzavelas, Markos Botzaris and Souliotes and Arvanites in general spoke albanese. This was conveniently "forgotten" after the war of independence. This is only an example, there are plenty like that where history has been rewritten.

So it should be clearly explained in the article that most of these concepts have been defined after the war of independence by Greek historian and thus are subject to POV.

--NeuCeu 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. These articles (En and Fr versions) obviously need the attention of experts. Personally, I am not in a position to assess the significance of your points. What I know for sure (since I live in Greece) is that the extreme majority of both Arvanites and Aromanians self-identify as Greeks (actually, even our President Karolos Papoulias is one), speak Greek, and are Greek Orthodox. The relevant wikilinked articles are pretty sourced on that. Given that self-identification, language, religion and place of birth are the primary factors defining ethnicity, I don't know if that omission is damning for the FA status of this article (Note: titled Names of the Greeks, not Greeks). However, I wouldn't object in its elaboration in due weight. •NikoSilver• 12:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note, I'm glad both French and Greeks understand these concepts of 'continuity'. Maybe this is the reason why we have been identified as the most nationalists in Europe! Hopefully, members of other nations will manage to understand concepts such as Hellenism for their own (which has nothing to do with nationality, or ethnicity, but with values -see #2), and then we'll have less trouble maliciously enforcing our point of view worldwide! •NikoSilver• 13:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the French WP are very pertinent. The current article is written as though "the Greeks" refers to exactly the same concept through the centuries, and simply presents the different names for this one concept. But in fact the definition of being Greek has changed quite a bit through the centuries, and the different names only partly correspond to this. Projecting the modern definition back into the past is unhistorical and misleading. The current article does not do a good job of reflecting the true historical complexity of the situation. --Macrakis 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if discussion on this point seems to have died out, I'ld like to agree with the remark above. The basic problem is that there is no consistent definition offered of what is to be understood by the word "Greeks" in "Names of the Greeks," and as a result a number of possible meanings are used in the course of the article. To start at the beginning: in Homer's poetry Achaeans and Trojans alike speak Greek, and are each but a few generations removed from the same divine pantheon. So there would seem to be little linguistic or cultural/religious differentiation between the two; if we say that the Achaeans are the "Greeks," we must be applying a geographic criterion (i.e. people who live in the south Balkans). "Hellene," however, as is rightly noted in the article, comes to be a primarily linguistic designation ("speakers of Greek") that elides ethnic (Doric, Ionic, etc.), political and cultural (Athenian, Spartan, Corinthian, etc.), and geographic (south Balkans, Anatolia) differences. Later, as is again corectly noted, it becomes a religious (and, primarily, a pejorative) term. "Rhwmaios," on the other hand, was primarily political (denoting citizenship in the like-named empire) and therefore by definition multi-ethnic, with the result that, say, an ethnic Armenian could easily be (and was) basileus twn Rhwmaiwn -- not to mention, in the earlier period, such native Latin-speakers as Constantine and Justinian, who subsequently become the paradigmatic emperors.

Thus by the time we get to the sub-section "Hellenic continuity and Byzantine consciousness" we've descended perilously close to the level of nonsense: Overall, ancient Hellenic continuity was evident all throughout the history of the Eastern Roman Empire. The "Byzantines" were not merely a general Orthodox Christian populace that referred to themselves as merely "Romans." Though they used the term for legal and administrative purposes, other terms were in fact used to ethnically distinguish themselves. In short, " and were able to preserve their identity while adapting to the changes the world was undergoing at the time. What is "ancient Hellenic continuity?" Is it linguistic, geographic, political, or ethnic? What are the terms that "they" were supposed to have used to ethnically distinguish themselves? The only citation given (not footnoted) is from Constantine VII (De administrando imperii?) and appears on the surface to be totally ambiguous; Graikos looks to be a regional term here. In this context, what group of people are the "Greek inhabitants of the E. R. Empire" supposed to be here?

In short, this looks to be an article with a strong ideological axe to grind, positing an essentialist and immutable conception of "the Greeks," while, ironically, adducing a lot of evidence that speaks to the contrary. Thus, in the introduction: 'The onset of every historical era was accompanied by a new national name: either entirely new or formerly old and sidelined, extracted from tradition or adopted from foreigners. Each was significant in its own time, and all can be used interchangeably. The Greeks are a polyonymous people.' Ah, now we're at the root of the problem. National names? --Javits2000 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"there is no consistent definition offered of what is to be understood by the word "Greeks" in "Names of the Greeks," and as a result a number of possible meanings are used in the course of the article"

Obviously... This article is about the many different names Greeks are known by, today and during the past. So, it would follow that the article deals with more than one names and with more than one definitions. Every school boy knows, no two words can have the exact same definition.

P.S.: Have you seen the movie Gladiator? Apparently Romans spoke Latin, but in the movie we only hear English. Homer wrote The Ilian as a piece of literature, and the Trojans speaking Greek was obviously a means of making the work accessible to the reader. Homer wasnt writing science. Everyone, even ancient Greeks, knew Trojans werent Greek. So, read the article again, carefully this time. Colossus 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for returning to this conversation after such a long caesura; I don't as a rule keep an eye on this article. Acknolwedgment that the article deals with "more than one definition" of "Greeks" merely reinforces the point that I've wanted to make. Let us follow it through in strictly semiotic fashion. The article purports to relate "the names of the Greeks." The implication is thereby that "Greek" is somehow a stable concept (signified), to which a variety of words (signifiers) have corresponded over the course of history. But if "Greek" is itself (as seems likely) an unstable name (signifier), then the specific meaning of this word which is understood to underly this article needs to be explicitly stated. (Cultural? Linguistic? Ethnic? "National"?) Otherwise the article loses coherence, and when we reach a sentence like the one quoted in my previous post ("the Greek inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire were very conscious of their ancient Hellenic heritage") we have no idea of what either term ("Greek" or "Hellenic") is supposed to mean. In other words, who were the "Greek" inhabitants of this empire, and by what criteria (again, linguistic? ethnic? etc.) were they distinguished from its other inhabitants? And of what sort was their "Hellenic" heritage? By this point in the article, this latter term, too, has acquired a range of possible meanings; which is intended here? When these points are not addressed, such a sentence is at best a tautology, at worst nonsense. --Javits2000 14:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Birds" supervisor

Having read and seen the play "Birds" I do not recall any supervisor of the birds. I think that it was Epops -an ancient king transformed to a bird- that taught them how to speak. Can you be a little more precise in that part? Thank you! 83.235.233.83 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronological and other issues in Hellenes section

After the name was extended to all peoples south of Mount Olympus, however, it still left out those of common origin living in the north. One factor contributing to this was their refusal to participate in the Persian Wars, which were considered a vital affair for all Hellenes; prior to the wars, representatives of these tribes had been accepted in the Olympic Games and competed alongside other Hellenes 14.

14 For example, King Alcon and King Tharypas of Mollosus, Alexander I and Archelaus of Macedonia

The above footnote doesn't fit with the text as it has chronological and factual errors as follows:

1. Archelaus lived after the Persian Wars and set up an "Olympia" at Dion in Macedonia. He did not compete at the games at Olympia.

2. Herodotus mentions Alcon as a suitor of the daughter of Kleisthenes of Sicyon but nowhere mentions his participation at Olympia.

3. Tharypas is mentioned by Thucydides around the time of the Peloponesian War - again well after the Persian Wars. Again, I am unaware of any mention of Tharypas as a competitor at Olympia.

Only Alexander I possibly competed at Olympia prior to the Persian Wars.

It should also be mentioned that the representatives competing at Olympia from Macedon where originally kings (Alexander I for example) as at that time (pre 4th century BC) only the Macedonian royal family where considered as being sufficiently "Hellenic" by the Hellanodikai at Olympia.

The text and/or footnote therefore needs to be amended in light of the above inaccuracies.

Thucydides calls the Acarnanians, Aetolians,[15] Epirotes and Macedonians barbarians, but does so in a strictly linguistic sense.

This is confusing without further elucidation as to why they where considered so "linguistically" - i.e. were the Epirote, West Greek and Macedonian dialects sufficiently different/archaic so as to be considered "barbaric" at the time of Thucydides? Leaving the sentence as it is implies that the language of these peoples was something other than a dialect of Greek.

When the Athenian orator Demosthenes called the Macedonians worse than barbarians in his Third Philippic directed at Philip II of Macedon, he did so with respect to the culture they demonstrated as foreigners not adhering to proper Hellenic standards, and did not raise the issue of their origin

What is meant by the phrase "not adhering to proper Hellenic standards" is ambiguous and needs some explanation - for example the fact that the Macedonian political institution was that of a "Homeric" style monarchy rather than a democratic or oligarchic city state, etc. I think such differences need to be made clearer, maybe by way of footnote.

What are other peoples' opinions on these issues?

Sattlersjaw 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1.Archelaos Perdikas or Arhelaus Perdikkas Macedonian king. He reportedly participated in the Olympics in 408 BCE,and won the race of the four-horse chariot in Delphi[6] Alexander I donated a statue of himself at Delphi after 479, and Archelaos took part in the Pythian Games(Delphi) [7] [8]

2.About Greeks labelled barbarian in antiquity[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.255.234 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3.Ancient remains that have been discovered in Aiani prove that the ancient Hellenistic Macedonian society spoke and wrote in Greek. Overturning,once and for all,the common accepted belief that Upper Macedonia was both socially and culturally isolated from the rest of ancient Greece.On the Contrary by the (6)Sixth Century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic,artistic and cultural level.Inhabitants of this area lived in well-planned cities and not in nomadic groups depending on farming and animal husbandry-BRITANNICA VIDEO [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Graecans

What the hell are Graecans??? All the references I've seen about this are from derivative works from Wikipedia... Citation needed???... Manuel Anastácio 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And why can't I find any town called Trehine, except in this article and his translations???... Manuel Anastácio 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Trachis??? Manuel Anastácio 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It should of course be Trachis; Trehine is a semi-Demotic transliteration of an Epic spelling. Iliad 2:682, click on English for translation. More seriously, we shouldn't be using the Catalogue of Ships as a source for the Bronze Age at all; Homer is neither secondary or reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Leader

The leader of the Greek War of Independence began his Declaration with a phrase similar to the above: "The time has come, O men, Hellenes". Please review your sources, you can't invent leaders because there is emphasis in an essay. The word implies a status which didn't exist in the Greek War of Independence. Often Greek texts in order to emphasize the help someone provided describe him/her with words that are translated as "leader", such as "αρχηγός", "πρωτεργάτης", "πρωτομάστορας" though these are only exaggerations. See if this was the case and please tell who your source states as "the leader".

Alexandros Ypsilantis was the official leader of the Greek revolution. The Greek revolution was organized by Filiki Eteria (a Greek secret organization) (The leading team was called the "Authority"). Alexandros Ypsilantis was elected by the “Authority” as “Επίτροπος της Αρχής” (Epitropos tis Arxis) which means “ the overlord of the Authority”. He had the general leading of the revolution and he was considered by everyone as leader! Seleukosa 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Birds, 199

There's a mention about Aristophanes, "The Birds", 199 - but I don't find nothing about that sense of the word "barbarian" in the whole of Aristophane's text. Could someone tell me what is said in the text? I only find the reference to the barbarian god who speaks with noises, not what is said in this article... Manuel Anastácio 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find, also, the citation "an illiterate man is also a barbarian" in "The Clouds" of Aristophanes! One carachter tells the other is an ignorant and a babarian, but not like is said in the article. Manuel Anastácio 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

in the greek text is the term barbarian in the spanish translation could be something else

Oh! the ignoramus! the barbarian! Socrates to Strepsiades [11] [12][13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.255.234 (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The original phrase is "άνθρωπoς αμαθές ουτωσί και βάρβαρος!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.255.234 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

DORIANS NOT PRESENT IN TROJAN WAR

The newcomers Dorians (the Macedonians including) did not exist and did not participate in Trojan war

The Dorian invasion is dated two generations after the Trojan War.[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.255.234 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with treating Greek mythology as though it were history; it's inconsistent. As Homer sings:

These dwelt in Rhodes which is divided among the three cities of Lindos, Ialysos, and Kameiros, that lies upon the chalk. These were commanded by Tlepolemos, son of mighty Herakles and born of Astyochea, whom he had carried off from Ephyra, on the river Selleis, (Il. 2.655-9).

These are the Dorian tripolis of Rhodes, led by a Heraclid, are they not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ATHENIANS AND THE GREEKS

"When the ATHENIANS attacked the HELLENES" Thukydides, 3.62;

"And this was the first naval victory that the city (ATHENS) had against the HELLENES, after the destruction." [Plutarch, Phokion 6]

"Even though the LACEDAEMONIANS had combated the HELLENES many times only one of their kings had ever died in action..." [Plutarch, Agis 21]

"The CRETANS, when the HELLENES sent to ask aid from them... acted as follows..." [Herodotos 7.169]

MORE EXAMPLES [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.255.234 (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As Hellenes was named a tribe in modern day Thessaly,Greece.Latter the name expanded to include all Greeks. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps needed

The article needs some maps. The addition of Image:Pelasgians.jpg is a good start, but there have to be other 4-5 maps, one for each period to show the places of residence of people who called themselves Greeks (or any of their other names).--FocalPoint (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thucydides

• Come on how can i misread it? I wrote exactly the point the writer makes.
• Graziosi, Barbara. Inventing Homer: The Early Reception of Epic, 2002, p. 118, ISBN 0521809665. Thucydides defines himself simultaneously against Homer and against Herodotus, though he explicitly mentions only Homer. In this respect as in many others the beginning of the Histories is programmatic. He starts by describing his subject matter the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians and by stating the reason why he chose it; it is the greatest event that ever happened. He adds that what happened before the war (Herodotus subject matter) and the remote past cannot be known but do not seem to have been as great as the present events. In order to make this claim plausible Thucydides must undermine the Greek vs Barbarian dichotomy. Otherwise he would be open to objection that while Homer and Herodotus depict a war fought by the whole of Greece against the Barbarian world Thucydides is only concerned with an internal Greek affairMegistias (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no misreading.Just read it.Megistias (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 3rdAlcove, you are misreading it, Megistias. Graziosi is saying that Th. "undermines" the Greek-Barbarian distinction, in the sense that he uses literary models developed for contrasting Greeks against Barbarians, but then turns those models around for describing an internal Greek conflict. She is also saying that Th. is "not explicitly interested in the opposition between Greeks and Barbarians". What she is not saying is that Th.'s decision to call some particular tribe barbarian at any one point of his text is motivated by his wish to undermine that distinction. That is your own personal speculation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs review

This article needs a thorough quality review. I doubt if it is really Featured Article material as it claims. I removed or tagged a few bits, but I'm sure there is more. Unsourced, POV-ish, OR-ish material in a lot of places it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though many of the individual facts and quotations are accurate, they are interpreted in a naive Greek-elementary-school way. We need solid, modern, secondary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the observation should be put a bit more like "though it may have met FA standards back in 2005, things have changed in the past three years and it likely does not meet current FA standards." The comment "I doubt if it is really [FA] material as it claims" implies that someone slapped an FA tag on it without going through FA-process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the points in question can be listed here by contributors so we can examine them. I havent visited wikipedia for a while and I can see the names of the greeks page has received a lot of excessive material that really just becomes pedantic to the topic and make it difficult to read.

I made it an objective of mine when I was expanding the article from a stub to provide reference points to source every major claim the article made (thus the over 60 references).

I think we should either save an older and cleaner version of the page and work our way upwards again or step by step clean the page page of any over the top and unsubstantiated material. Colossus (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article has two different absolute claims for the origin of Hellene; one of them is directly contrary to the text of Homer, who notoriously does not use it as an "umbrella-term".
• The assertion that Hellenes ever meant "civilized men in general" requires a very good source; preferably one using it of an Egyptian, a Babylonian, or a Persian.
  • This may be the sentence; In the scriptures of the New Testament Hellenes is used as a term representative of all the non-Jewish peoples (cf. Galatians 3:28). The citation is "neither Jew nor Greek" - but we are not here to read St. Paul's mind that all his distinctions are intended to be exhaustive (and the usage of a Greek-speaking foreigner is not likely to be typical in any case). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I am glad to see this has been cleaned up; the rest appear sitll to be present, as a cumulative diff will show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• It needs to use secondary, not primary, sources. At the least, it should use well-edited and annotated editions of primary sources.
• It claims the original Graikoi were in Magna Graecia and quotes Aristotle that they were around Dodona; it also says both that they were Boeotian and that they were Dorian. (The new Pauly from Brill says Thessaly, with a possible extension to Dodona; neither is compatible with Boeotian or Dorian).
• It is very badly written. Neither word in political annotation has a clear meaning; if political is intended to mean "related to the city of Argos", that is not English; and there are many sentences just as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great was amongst the first leaders who officially used the terms Hellenes

This is "sourced" to Plutarch and Arrian, who quote Alexander's dispatch from the Granicus. Neither, of course, support the claim actually made here, that Alexander was amongst the first to do so; it is not true. Alexander, after all, is quoting the pact of the League of Corinth, made by his father; before that, Isocrates, Pericles, Aristides (and the Hellenotamiae).... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the reason of the objection it is not that Arian didn't quote him using the term Hellenes but whether Alexander was "among the first" to do so. You are right that the "amongst the first" is unsourced. So maybe it is just that part that should be removed for now? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is trivial without it; Alexander said Hellene. So what? So have many before and since - but it would at least cease to be false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Romans or Romioi

sorry guys, I have to say something about the dispute half the page up. I will just make this remark and will not write anything further on this pointm, as much has been written already - I wil leave the issue to your jugdement. Being a Greek myself, when I read the article, I was estranged by the usage of the term 'Romans' in some parts of the article. In Greek, both modern and medieval, the usage and the meaning of the terms Romans and Romioi are not the same. It is not just a matter of using kathareuousa or dimotiki, the two terms bear different connotations. Romaios is a citizen of the Roman Empire (the Eastern one in this context) and was used as such, i.e. with political significane. On the other hand Romios was the word (derived from 'Roman') used by the Greek people to identify themselves as a people different both from the Romans of Rome (with regard to ethnicity and culture) and from the ancient Greeks (with regard to religion). In fact, most uneducated Greeks in later times would not even guess that the 'Romios' is anyhow connected with 'Roman', just as they would not realise the the word Rumeli stems from Rome. (Of course, educated people could understand the connection, that is why the scholar Dionysius Pyrrus incites his fellow country men not to call themselves Romans). The kathareuousa - dimotiki distinction does not apply, for two reasons: a) during the middle ages there was no distinction between kathareusousa and dimotiki, there was only the language (and dialects) spoken by the people and the official language (which initially was not even Greek, it was Latin, as you know). b) the kathareousa - dimotiki distinction means that a word or phrasing in dimotiki could be tranferred in kathareousa and vice versa, but this is not the case here. Romios could not be rendered into Romaios, since they had different connotations. Besides, while the state might use the term Romaioi to refer to all its citizens (greeks and non-greeks), the term Romioi referred to the Greek citizens of the empire only, the others would be called by their ethnic names (arvanites, armenioi etc). The use of the term Roman that estranged me most was in the quote: 'Scholar Rigas Feraios called "Bulgars and Arvanites, Armenians and Romans" to rise in arms against the Ottomans', as well as in the next quote from Makrygiannis. No Greek would expect to hear Makrygiannis (a demoticist) or Feraios utter the word 'roman', although Feraios did not wrtite in plain dimotiki (neither in plain kathareuousa) - indeed both passages use the term Romoioi in Greek. I understand the point I (and Deucalionite above) make may not be easy to grasp for a person who is not a native speaker of Greek, since in English there is only one word for both terms. To illustrate the way I understand my mother tongue: I could take pride in being called a Romios just as in being called a Greek or a Hellenas, but I would not take pride in being called a Roman (this is just an illustration - I don't really think I should take any pride in being a Greek and not being a green person from Mars:) However, if this article is to give a better understanding of the usage of the "names of the Greeks" to its readers, I think it should make this distinction clear, and use the term Greeks themselves would use in each context. What I suggest is to change the term Roman(s) to Romios(/oi) in the title and text of the 'Contest between the names Hellene, Roman, and Greek' section. The 'Romans (Ρωμαίοι) and Romioi (Ρωμιοί)' seems alright to me, as it gives adequate explanation of the 2 terms - besides, the term 'Romans' is more appopriate there, since it concerns official languange mainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.208.134 (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Romios did not exist until after 1453, i'm afraid...

In the article you write: "In 212 AD, Emperor Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana granted all free people in all Roman provinces citizenship. However, the Greeks transmogrified their newly acquired political title (Romans) and began to refer to themselves as Romioi (Romios/Ρωμιός for singular). The new term was created in order to establish a dualistic identity that represented the Greeks' Roman citizenship, as well as their Hellenic ancestry, culture, and language."

Maybe you know when "Romios" first emerged ? It was after 1453, and probably after 1500. Nowadays Romios means the Greek, but until the 1800s Romios and Roman (Romaios) were used interchangebly. So you see, the citizens of the eastern roman empire NEVER reffered to themselves as "Romios", but only as "Roman". More about the roots of the usage of romios you can find on a book written by George Metallinos, now former dean of the Athens University school of Theology, and a historian. It is called "Paganistic Hellenism or Hellenic Orthodoxy?" ( https://www.perizitito.gr/product.php?productid=60599&page=1 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Metallinos)

It has a couple of pages on the second half of the book where it addresses the usage of "Romios" and when we started to use it for the first time. I would also recommend reading "Chronography" by Theofanis, which starts at 284 and finishes at the 8th century. Although Theofanis does recognise that the Greek culture is dominant throughout the empire , he does not seem to think that the empire of the 8th century is any different than the empire of 284, being a continuation...the only differnce you might see is the total establishment of Christianity. So , saying that the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves "Romios(-oi)" is like saying that the native Indians called themselves "Americans", before even America was discovered...very misleading, really. Please change it.

-- Alexandros The G(r)eek

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.183 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of the Greek vowels was complete by 600 AD, when the name upsilon became necessary to distinguish ὑ from οι; it may be much earlier. The use of Ρωμαίοι for the subjects of New Rome is attested from Priscian and Evagrius Scholasticus, a little earlier; after that, this is a claim the Byzantines never introduced a non-standard spelling, and Byzantine spelling is notoriously unreliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article currently has significanly more cleanup tags than any other Featured Article. Grateful if editor(s) interested in the area can address issues such as accuracy, neutrality and sourcing asap, thanks Tom B (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

Can someone highlight why and where this article fails in its factual accuracy and why the neutrality of this article is disputed? For anyone interested in engaging in any seemingly racist digs against so-called 'Greek' users, I am only asking in good faith to improve the article. By the way, I am removing infromation in the article that seems too esoteric (to put it kindly) or has not been sourced for a while. Politis (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of this article is unreferenced. Inline references are needed for the statements made in the article. I could go through the article and tag it, but it would be better if you would source the statements. Also, some of the sources do not seem reliable. e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20060525203525/http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/137/How.htm Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you tag the most eggregious of these and I will either source or remove the offending statements.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find the reason for the inclusion of the POV tag in June 2009. When they were placed in the edit summary there was only a mention of "tags in general"[16]. I see several concerns about citations but I couldn't find anything about why NPOV is violated. I would suggest for some input about that so that it can be fixed if there is any particular problem. Right now there is a POV tag and no mention about why NPOV is disputed. It would be great if the editor who placed the tags could point out what the POV issues of the article are or any other editor who can provide input so that Xenovatis, Politis and other interested editors can be assisted. Also some {fact} tags on the unsourced paragraphs would help I think. The input on what the specific issues of this article are is really minimal right now.

In PMAnderson's list of issues (Needs review section above) only the "civilized men in general" part was a POV statement and this was cleaned up. The rest are about factual accuracy, Is there anything else that qualifies as a POV issue? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should contact User:Pmanderson who added failed verification tags[17] the recent POV and disputed tags[18],[19] and seems to have knowledge of the article topic. If the concerns of others are not being addressed, they may resort to POV tags. I am not defending this practice, but it does indicate editorial concerns with the accuracy of the content of the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, could you please indicate which passages lack adequate verification (according to you) and I will endeavour to either verify and cite or remove the offending passages. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject way over my head, involving not just the relevant history, but issues such as the translation of phrases from Greek which I am certainly not equiped to handle. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The tags are not all mine; but you can have some more. This article is a tendentious piece of ethnic boasting; to cite one example I have not yet tagged, quoting St. Paul as though "wise and foolish, Greek and barbarian" is intended to imply that the Greeks are wise and the barbarians foolish is original research.

As a private grievance, this still contains Deucalionite's presentation of Homer as history, and very unlikely history.

Most seriously, this contains what it need not have at all: one side, and only one side, of the question of the ethnicity of the inhabitants of Macedon. Silence would be acceptable, since it is also off-topic; but presenting half the case is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To add another example, Euripides' opinion on the superiority of Greeks is argued from Iphigenia in Aulis, line 1400-1; that's synthesis from a primary source - and forgets that the source in question is a play. That's Iphigeneia's opinion; whether it is the author's (as opposed to something he thought would appeal to his audience) is another question entirely. This is what reliable secondary sources are for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article continues to have numerous factual, POV, and stylistic problems. The most fundamental problem it has is that, even though it presents a variety of sources clearly showing that 'Greek' has had many different meanings over the centuries, much of the article is written as though there was some eternal Platonic entity called 'Greeks' -- the fallacy of essentialism. There is copious anachronism ("national name"). The article uses many primary sources (Pausanias, Herodotus) as though they needed no interpretation. The article is tendentious. Finally, the writing is terrible, with many malapropisms ("Argives is an annotation...", "many naïve leaders"), peacock terms, fancy words where simple ones would do ("polyonymous"), and just generally poor English style. --macrakis (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I am an anti-essentialist that believes in nullifying the Greeks as a persistent ethno-cultural community. I believe in remaking this article in the politicized image of anti-essentialism that emphasizes any discontinuities that may be minute in actuality." In short, the above arguments reflect the "essentialism of anti-essentialism". - Peleus (unsigned comment by User:71.172.192.42)

Yes, I am anti-essentialist, as are, I believe, all serious historians. I don't believe in "nullifying the Greeks", only understanding history in all its complications, not retrospective idealizations created as part of nation-building. --macrakis (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that serious historians are involved in the politicized pursuit towards "de-essentializing" (or "diversifying") history? If that is the case, then historians today are likely to fabricate "historical complications" well enough to validate a purely ideological discourse. And although history is rife with simplo-complex actualities, adherents to anti-essentialism tend to over-complicate actual phenomena just as much as adherents to essentialism over-simplify actual phenomena. From what I can tell, you probably see the Greeks as an "invented society" developed solely in the 19th century rather than as a persistent pre-modern ethno-cultural community having established its first nation-state in the 19th century under (more or less) Enlightenment standards. Therefore, your purpose here is to "nullify the Greeks" by over-complexifying the simple phenomenon of Greeks having multiple historical names. It is presumptuous to argue that modern Greeks engage in styles of "retrospective idealization" when their actual ethno-cultural identity was present centuries prior to modern-day nationalism (or national statism technically). If anything, your admittance to being an anti-essentialist technically renders you unable to assess the needs of this entry dispassionately. - Peleus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.189.121 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There you are oversimplifying again. If you assume everything that is to be proven, the proof is easy. --macrakis (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't respond well to deflective sophisms. A reasoned rebuttal would be preferrable. - Peleus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.189.121 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You accuse me of sophism and think my arguments are 'presumptuous' but presume that Greek "ethno-cultural identity was present...". You have decided I want to 'nullify the Greeks' (whatever that means). You don't seem open to debate, so I won't bother. --macrakis (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I "seem" to have already requested that you provide a reasoned rebuttal to the arguments made so far. Choosing to be defensive, however, accomplishes little. Again, the arguments you've made so far imply that the Greeks were anything but a persistent ethno-cultural community. This is where my argument as to you "nullifying the Greeks" comes in. At this point, you have to ask yourself: Was there ever a time in history when the Greeks as an ethnic unit or as a cultural unit experienced a complete and irrecoverable "die-off"? If true, then your claim regarding modern Greeks engaging in "retrospective idealizations" (i.e. fallaciousness of ideological essentialism) is valid. If false, then your claim is baseless. So exactly what alterations are you planning on implementing to the entry? - Peleus

There was a time when the Greeks did not exist as a cultural unit. (As an extreme proof, before the appearance of humanity; in practice, presumably before the break-up of Proto-Indo-European, in the fourth millennium BC.) It is unlikely that that period ended before there was a single word for "Greek", probably 700-600 BC.

The definition of "Greek" has fluctuated over time; it has involved three concepts, which have a large overlap but are by no means identical: Greek by descent (which probably excludes Zeno, Lucian, and Thucydides); Greek by language (which excludes the "slavic-speaking Greeks" and many Greek-Americans and Greek-Australians, and includes the Pontic Rom); Greek Orthodox by religion (which excludes all of classical antiquity and many modern natives of the Hellenic Republic).

Assertion of a Greek "essence" is a PoV. It is not consensus, and Peleus would proobably dislike inclusion of much that has been said by essentialists (for example, Wilamowitz and Jaeger). I have no problem asserting the "continuity of Greek culture"; it's largely meaningless, and what little it does mean is largely unexceptionable. But different times and different purposes have meant different things by "Greek", and it is not unreasonable that this article say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Peleus, "die-off" is not the issue. "Essence" is the issue. As I have said before on this page, the definition of Greekness has varied over time (as PMAnderson points out above), both as to the central concept (is it people who speak Greek and sacrifice to the Olympian Gods?) and the edges (does it include non-Greek-speaking Cappadocian Christians? Greek-speaking Cretan Muslims? Albanian-speaking Christians in Northern/Southern Epirus? Greek-speaking Aegean Catholics?). There is a recognizable long-term "core" group of Greeks, namely those elites literate in Greek and participating in (or aspiring to) Greek culture and Orthodox (in the Christian period). But during most historical periods, the edges have been much much less clear, and much more fluid (a Slavic-speaker in Macedonia is defined as a 'Greek' if he or she belongs to the Greek rather than the Bulgarian Orthodox church...). --macrakis (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I will in due time go through the list of tags PMAnderson has placed. If anyone wants to start first or assist they are most welcome. I can't do much about the use of English and would suggest someone whose native language is English (Macrakis?) do that instead. Wrt boasting and peacock terms by all means anyone with a mind to please take care of that. As for the essentialism we had this discussion before, the arguments you put forward were pretty thin and I distinctly remember supplying you with a page full of quotes supporting my thesis.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Essentialism is (at best) a point of view. It is widely held that it is not a helpful one in these matters (for one example of unhelpfulness, Fallmerayer was an essentialist), but that is another question; helpful or not, any article that presupposes it is essentially PoV. Septentrionalis

PMAnderson 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You could argue for changing the name to "Names of the Greek-speakers" but should note that "Greek speakers" and "Greeks" are used interchangeably in English. Hence the name is valid after all.--Xenovatis (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We could. That is one of the three or four criteria which this article treats as defining "the Greeks"; the problem being, of course, that the criteria mark out sets which are not equal to each other. This one omits the "slavophone Greeks" of Florina, and would include the Rom, still dwelling in Pontus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is critical that the opening paragraph address the definition of Greekness and its relationship to the varied names; something along the lines of "Greekness is a radial category whose center and edges have varied through time, and for which a variety of names has been used, often invoking different aspects of the category's definition." --macrakis (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

True but we shouldn't attempt to define Greekness for ourselves but rather focus on how it is treated in the English language. In the end it is the majority of any group that sets the tone for its definition not ingroup minorities. Regardless of that too however the word Greek has had the same meaning in Latin and Germanic languages for the past two thousand years, the speaker of Greek and that is a fact not an opinion. So despite the fact that the greek speakers themselves went from Hellenes to Romaioi to Hellenes in terms of their ethnonym their exonym remained constant.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the meanings of "Greek", but only one; it is not the meaning implicit in the Greek boundary claims of 1912, or in the Treaty of Lausanne, both of which determine Greekness by Greek Orthodoxy, obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople. At other times and for other purposes, as our article suggests, Greekness has been the following of Greek customs (as they have changed through the millennia); at yet other times, Greekness has been membership in one of the Greek states. The question of what dialects are members of the "Greek language" is also disputable; the ancient treatment of Latin as a Greek dialect was fairly widespread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1. No it isn't but since this isn't the 1912 Greek state edition of WP would it be allright if we used the meaning the word has had in English for the past one thousand years or however the language has been in existence? Again let me repeat that our task here is not to define Hellenism but rather describe what is meant by the word Greeks in the english language. And the meaning of Greeks in English is very clearly greek-speakers and has been so for ever.
2. Yes but that still doesn't make it Greek by modern linguistic criteria. Pontic Greek OTOH is identifiably Greek derived even if little more comprehensible than Latin to the average Greek speaker.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I would also like to suggest that some help would be appreciated in going through the list of dubious/uncited statements in the article.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is help removing, not the tags, but the statements themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "the meaning the word has had in English for the past one thousand years", I think you are mistaken that 'Greek' is synonymous with 'Greek-speakers' in English during all that period. An interesting contemporary quote:

It is curious to observe the gradual disuse of Greek among the Greeks, produced by the change of their residence. In Greece the Turks speak only Greek; in Constantinople the Greeks speak both Greek and Turkish, but only the former to each other; in Asian Minor, along the coast, they can speak Greek when addressed in it, but talk Turkish to each other. And in the interior parts of Asia Minor, they know no other language than Turkish. The Gentleman's magazine, October 1820, p. 348 full text

Other Greek-speaking people who were not called Greek included the Cretan Muslims (almost all Greek-speaking), who were not some marginal "in-group minority", but almost half the population of Crete in 1821. (cf. Cretan_Turks#History) The Greek-speaking Romaniote Jews were never called Greeks in English.

Conversely, many English-language sources speak of Albanian-speaking or Vlach-speaking or Slavic-speaking Greeks (try a Google Book search). These were not small groups. So I'm afraid the equation Greek = speaker of Greek simply doesn't work. --macrakis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that there are non-Greek speakers in the set Greeks but rather that this is widely enough known that it is assumed to be so by the majority of English users. The Cretan Muslims or the Pontic Muslims are marginal minorities since they do not feature in any mainstream discussion of Greeks. Whether this is rightly so (your argument about their numbers) is moot. This is how it is. Few English speakers today are aware of the Romaniotes, Vlachs, Ntopioi, Arvanites, Greek Americans and other non-Greek speaking groups that form part of the Greek people. As I wrote it is the majority of any group that sets the tone for its definition and the vast majority of Greeks are and have always been Greek speakers.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis proposed to define Greeks as Greek-speakers. I pointed out problems with this definition, and you seem to agree with the problems. I said that Greekness is a 'radial category', and again you seem to agree when you talk about "setting the tone for its definition". --macrakis (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am Xenovatis incidentally and I didn't suggest that we define Greeks, just the opposite as per my discussion with PMA. What I proposed was that we should use the word Greeks with its most common English (in fact Romance and Germanic) meaning of Greek-speakers. The Greece Runestones for example or the term Greek to refer to the Greek speaking Romans of Romania. The default definition of Greek in English is Greek speaker and thus the article's name is correct and mor in line with WP naming policies than the more cumbersome "Names of the Greek-speakers".--Anothroskon (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The default definition of Greek in English is Greek speaker. Not so; the OED 's default definition is "A native of Greece; a member of the Greek race " (whatever that means). But that's the problem: there is no definition of "Greek" better than Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: we know it when we see it; and the problem with obscenity laws is that most of us will all see some things as pornography, but disagree on others. To adopt Anothroskon's solution would reduce this article to "Helllenophone"; we could do that, but the result belongs on Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article shouldn't ba named "Names of the Greek-speakers" and that is precisely what I am arguing against. It should stay Names of the Greeks.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then whom are you arguing with? Nobody has suggested it be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, someone now has; but it's not clear that he would like "Names of the Greek=speakers" any better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anothroskon is another instantiation of Xenovatis, as his user page says.
• The subsections below are part of the original topic of this section. Not all of them are tagged, in part because the most common tags don't always fit them. Some of them represent tags that should not be removed until the passage is fixed; all of them justify the overalll {{accuracy}} and {{POV}} tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Aristides

Calling Aristides of Athens an Athenian statesman? Can't the patriot who wrote this tell the difference between a Christian apologist and Aristides? To say nothing of the second century AD and the fifth century BC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tribonian

Quite true, the Suda does say that Tribonian was a pagan. The Suda says a lot of things, many of them crap; is there any reason to believe this one? Secondary sources, guys. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Danaus

Danaans is the name attributed to a Greek mythological character, twin brother of Aegyptus and son of Achiroe and Belus.

Absurd as stated; Danaans is not the name of Danaus in English, or any language known to man.

More seriously, it does not address the real question: who were the Danaoi known to Homer? Is Danaus a later creation, an artificial eponym, like Dorus or Ion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of "Greek"

What the article claims, persistently, is that the Italians learned the word Greek from the Greek colonists in Sicily and Apulia. This is most unlikely; did the colonists use Graikoi of themselves? The transmission of Hellene to the West is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Athanasius

One does not, in a linguistic context, translate kata ethnikōn as Against the pagans, no matter what the translator has done. Pagan is not Greek; and is an anachronism. (Confusing it with the De Incarnatione, as his own article appears to do, because they were edited in the same volume is sheer carelessness.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Notes

• This review of a book by Niketas Siniossoglou may be helpful on late antique self-identifications; the book itself would be even more so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Text removal

[20] Undid removal of text which the justification "Remove arguable.". Since the editor believes there is something arguable, he should argue against it first, here.

Personally I think that there is nothing arguable in the sentence:

The Greeks are a polyonymous people; various names have been used by various peoples to refer to them, and, among those, even by the Greeks themselves. The onset of new historical eras occasionally brought about the adoption of a new national name: either entirely new or formerly old and sidelined, extracted from tradition or adopted from foreigners. Each was significant in its own time, and all can be used interchangeably.

and therefore I believe its removal is unjustified. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The principal problem with that passage is that it is pretentiously illiterate, as perhaps I should have indicated: polyonymous is showing off, among these, even by the Greeks themselves agrees with nothing, and the rest of it is almost as bad.

But the arguable claims of fact here are:

• The onset of new historical eras occasionally brought about the adoption of a new national name. It is unclear what "the onset of a new historical era" (as idiom would require) is supposed to mean, and the implication of agency to the onsets, whatever they are, is certainly arguable.
• What name of the Greeks was formerly old and sidelined?
• Each was significant in its own time Does this say anything other than "Each meant Greek"? If not, it is redundant; if it does, arguable.
• all can be used interchangeably False; our article ends by discussing the difference between Hellenes and Romioi, and the assertion that Achaeans (or even Ionians) can be "interchanged" with most of the others is nonsense.

I am reverting; if I am rereverted, I shall add {{dubious}} tags to the sentences I have removed, and consider putting up this dishonest piece of propaganda for deletion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• As a note of civility, restoring those three sentences would have been far more acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the assertion that Achilles' Hellenes are the Myrmedones is probably also debateable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is confusion concerning this blanket text removal:

• is the use of a rarely-used term pretentious or illiterate?
• if the editor thought that "the assertion that Achilles ..." was OK then why did he delete it at the time? Then why did he delete it?

I would like to call User:Pmanderson to order, so that in the future he will refrain from characterizations and blanket text removals. If he thinks a sentence is not correct, then let us argue about it, but a blanket removal and gross characterizations about text show a strong POV from his part. He can try to impose it, this is wikipedia anyway, and he will probably manage to push through some of it. But this should be done in an orderly way. The suggestion to add tags to sentences is fine with me. Then these sentences can be discussed. My point is to help editing in a proper wikipedian way. User:Pmanderson can be bold but he should also assume good faith instead of making characterizations. Furthermore, he must understand that his actions are disputed and therefore have to be discussed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, instead of reverting. I therefore expect that he will restore the text and point to the individual issues, so that problems which may exist can be corrected, since there must be other ways for improvement apart from just removing text. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree completely with Septentrionalis that the material he removed is indeed "pretentiously illiterate". The only reason I have not tried to do anything about it myself is because too many editors of this article seem to subscribe to the myths of Paparrigopoulos as repeated by obsolete nationalistic textbooks, and I simply don't have the energy to debate endlessly. About the specific points:

• The use of "polyonymous" in this article is pretentious and pointless. This has been pointed out before, and in fact another editor (not Pmanderson or me) removed it some time ago, but it was reintroduced. In English (and remember that this is the English-language Wikipedia), good style demands simple, short words. (see, e.g. Writing Well: The Essential Guide by Mark Tredinnick)
• The reification of "historical eras" in "The onset of new historical eras brought about..." is unhistorical in exactly the way Pmanderson says -- "historical eras" (and their onset) are conventional labels and do not "bring about" historical events.
• The second half of that sentence, "the adoption of a new national name" has multiple problems. "Adoption" seems to imply that new terms were simply taken up and not the outcome of various kinds of semantic development -- including political debate at times. "New national name" seems to imply that one name was used at a time and that there was a well-defined "nation", rather than there being competing notions of nationhood (linguistic, religious, political...) which often corresponded to different names.
• "Each was significant in its own time" is, as Septentrionalis says, "pretentious and illiterate", not to mention content-free.
• "All can be used interchangeably" is bizarre and factually wrong in all historical periods, including the modern one.

The article as a whole, as I've said before, has numerous problems, and I'm happy that Septentrionalis has started fixing a few of them. --macrakis (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Competent English writers will not use polyonymous when "has many names", which is simpler and more natural, can be substituted. To do otherwise is sesquipedalianism, outworn as a prose-style; it is now a form of humor - and a tiresome one. (Note that what is natural differs from language to language; in Demotic, the corresponding word is derived from native roots.) The word is not wholly useless, since there are classificatory contexts ("All polyonymous terms have the properties...") where the substitution is impractical.
• Why did I not remove the Myrmidons at the time? Because I missed them; no copyedit is perfect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)