Talk:Barbarian/RfC on usage

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

RfC

This RfC is on the usage of the term Barbarian at wikipedia.

I argue that the usage of the term "barbarian" is inherently POV, is inherently imprecise because it is too vague and broad a term and unless being used in a direct quote, is inappropriate at wikipedia in most instances. This is concerning the broader contextual meaning of the term and not just for the Roman's usage of it.

User Stbalbach takes the position that the term barbarian is a neutral and appropriate term to be used when identifying any "non-Roman", as can be seen in protracted discussion at Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire and his recent addition of the section Modern Academia at the Barbarian article.

Please read the relevant policies on this matter: Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia Naming Conventions.

Based on these policies:

1. Barbarian is not the term these groups self-identified as.
2. Barbarian is an outdated and imprecise term - it is vague, overly broad and encourages sloppy scholarship.
3. Barbarian is not specific terminology. The most specific terminology available is the appropriate usage.
4. Barbarian cannot be assumed to be an all-inclusive and accurate term when describing all "non-Romans".
5. Barbarian is inherently unneutral. It is considered pejorative and has negative associations - regardless of common usage.
6. Barbarian can be used in a direct quote, with the original text, even if the author does not adhere to these guidelines.

Up until fairly recent times, it was quite normal - even in academia and science - to refer to non-anglo cultures and racial groups as simply "non-white" rather than whatever their respective self-identifier was. Referring to any "outside" group based on the blanket biases and opinions of another group which is perceived as morally and culturally superior is inherently POV. This archaic usage can be seen in instances in referring to all non-jews (or non-christians) as "gentiles", or more relevant in this instance, the archaic practice of referring to native-americans simply with the historical usage of "savages".

This has nothing to do with falling back on the fallacious Appeal to tradition. A conclusion should be able to be drawn solely based on empirical common sense that referring to "outside" groups with a pejorative is inherently POV. - WeniWidiWiki 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Stbalbach

The term Barbarian is appropriate in some articles on Wikipedia dealing with Late Antiquity because it is the commonly accepted terminology used by Medieval scholars.

• All the available modern mainstream sources about the Middle Ages use the term Barbarian within proper historical context. This includes:

• Encyclopedia Britannica on Barbarian. plus all other general purpose Encyclopedias. I know of no Encyclopedia that avoids the term Barbarian or use it in quotes.
• Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the largest, most modern, and most respected encyclopedia about the Middle Ages in the English language, has an article entitled "Barbarians, the Invasions" and uses the term barbarian throughout its 13 volumes.
• The most important and top scholars of Late Antiquity are: Peter Heather, Peter Brown, Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart -- all of whom use the term Barbarian not only in texts, but in the titles of books, including those published as recently as December 2006. These scholars work at some of the worlds top universities and are obviously peer reviewed per WP:RS.
• This is just a sample but shows mainstream use in reliable sources per WP:RS.

• The above RfC has provided no source to support its position. It is a logical fallacy to take the term out its proper academic context.

• Sometimes terms do go out of style, if that is the case, it should be no trouble providing a source saying so. For example, this article from Encyclopedia Britannica says the term Dark Ages "is now rarely used by historians". Is there any source anywhere that says Barbarian "is rarely used by historians"?

• Regarding the "Appeal to tradition" argument, according to the rules of Wikipedia (WP:OR) we are supposed to use mainstream academic sources ie. tradition. WP:OR is not an "appeal to tradition", but how Wikipedia is designed. We report on what others say and do.

• As for it being a pejorative, historians don't use it as a pejorative, it is used to avoid an anachronism, which is standard historical practice, many historically pejorative terms are used that way. For example "Renaissance" implies a "rebirth" from a "dark age" which implies a negative view of the kingdoms of the early middle ages (related to the complaint about the term barbarian). The term "Renaissance" was a pejorative created by Italian humanists in the 15th C who wanted to see Ancient Rome rise again, but historians use "Renaissance" today in a neutral manner without implying they wish to restore ancient Rome (!). In the same way historians use Barbarian in a neutral manner within proper historical context.

• Regarding this: Barbarian is not the term these groups self-identified as. - Most of the terms for these tribes were assigned to them by the Romans. Germans, for example, did not call themselves German until after Late Antiquity was over - German is a Roman term.

-- Stbalbach 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bloodofox

The term is an ancient slur. We are not citizens of ancient Rome and, if we were, it still wouldn't be OK because Wikipedia is a neutral source of information. It doesn't matter how neutral anyone means it to be, the origins and definition of the term are plain to see and there are many other, more specific terms that could be used instead.

Not only this, the term is not necessary, is unspecific, has various negative historically incorrect connotations and is, as others have stated, rather lazy. If the tribes are Germanic, write Germanic tribes. If there were Slavic tribes, write it. If there were both, write it. Rome does not gain more importance on the historical scale than those surrounding it. :bloodofox: 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Barbarian" is just like "Indian" - it refers to the native peoples using historical terminology. The term Indian is indeed controversial in modern politics, see Native American name controversy - but no such controversy exists for Barbarian. If it did, there would be no trouble pointing to sources that said so - actually you did, you said "Modern Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionist groups, for example, shun the word as it is anciently slanted towards Roman POV"[1]. Could you expand on that? -- Stbalbach 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense? Have you even bothered to read the definition of this term throughout the lengthy time we've been over this? Repeated:

bar·bar·i·an /bɑrˈbɛəriən/

–noun

1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.

2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine.

3. (loosely) a foreigner.

4. (in ancient and medieval periods)

a. a non-Greek.

b. a person living outside, esp. north of, the Roman Empire.

c. a person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization.

5. (among Italians during the Renaissance) a person of non-Italian origin.

–adjective

6. uncivilized; crude; savage.

7. foreign; alien.

[Origin: 1540–50; < L barbari(a) barbarous country (see barbarous, -ia) + -an]

Yeah, that sounds real neutral to me.

I am pretty sure that many Germanic neopagan groups would give you a hard time about the term as well, especially reconstructionist groups, who tire of historically incorrect stereotypes and Roman centered terms such as this but I am not sure what this has to do with our discussion at hand since Germanic neopaganism is a modern development and we are discussing ancient Rome. :bloodofox: 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking the term out of its academic context and using a cherry-picked dictionary definition to claim POV is clearly Original Research. We report on what people do and scholars (both specialists and generalists) use the term Barbarian in proper context all the time, universally, without controversy or exception. I'm sorry you personally find that offensive, but that is just how the world is and how Wikipedia operates. Perhaps the problem is not with the word, but a mis-understanding of how professional historians use words from the past. If your so upset with this particular "slur", I could name a dozen other slurs that are equally offensive: Renaissance. Middle Ages. Dark Ages. Ancient Regime. Please, stop this nonsense. -- Stbalbach 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This entire issue is solved by simply being specific and concise, something all editors should be doing in the first place, something I was attempting to relay by pasting a dictionary.com definition here. :bloodofox: 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't belittle other editor's opinions as "nonsense" - that is why we are having an RfC - because you will only acknowledge your own position and none other. - WeniWidiWiki 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personally attack me WeniWidiWiki (again). Acknowledgment of a position doesn't mean agreeing with it, and the word nonsense is an unoffensive opinion about a general idea, used in the context of supporting evidence, not aimed at a person. I certainly do respect bloodofox and yourself and your opinions, that is an unfortunate mis-characterization. -- Stbalbach 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

• I agree with Stbalbach's position -- in the context of Greek and Roman history, the term Barbarian serves a useful purpose.

If pejorative connotations exist, they reflect the attitude of many civilised societies, not merely those of Greece or Rome, to consider outsiders with a different cultur and language as inferior by default. E.g. Chinese, Korean, and Japanese authors routinely used comparable terms in describing foreigners.

Why hide the existance of such prejudices by bowdlerizing sources and debattes with politically correct euphemisms? The study of history should be enlightening - trying to be inoffensive does not help.

Textor 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources themselves are not vague, and political correctness has nothing to do with it. Having a neutral point of view is established wikipedia policy. - WeniWidiWiki 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make certain I understand the debate correctly. Just to take an example, Stbalbach would defend use of the term "barbarian" in the sentence "[The Romans] gradually outsourced their duties to defend the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them" and WWW would oppose it, substituting "German." Stbalbach would counter that "German" is an anachronism (and let me add that not all of those bar... er soldiers would be considered Germans, even by modern standards). WWW is not averse to the use of the term "barbarian" as part of a quote or to express the point-of-view of the Romans, but does not believe that this should be the standard term used to refer to the peoples in question. Is this correct?

If it is, I think WWW should propose alternative language that he thinks would be more accurate and neutral. I also think it would be useful to see if there has been any criticism in academia of the use of this word by modern academics in describing these peoples. We should remember we are writing for a general, not an academic, audience, so iff we can find a replacement for barbarian that is less confusing to non-historians and that can be used without introducing imprecision to the article or requiring lengthy parenthetical explanation, we should consider using this term. JChap2007 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In most instances, the source material itself cites the more accurate tribe and name of the group. (Vegetius and Tacitus being prime examples.) Wikipedia articles are not to be written in the technical jargon of academia, this is a layman's resource. An example of the sloppy editing in question directly from the article:

"the theory also ignores the fact that barbarian horsemen served in enormous numbers as foederati in the Roman military"

Which barbarians? What is the source for this statement? Surely the source states whether these were Visigoths, Vandals or Alans? If it doesn't, why not provide a direct quote? A simple work around, yet totally objectionable to some. This topic has been touched upon by the media here in Decline and fall of the Roman myth and elsewhere. In academia:

"At all times the Greeks regarded all Blacks as barbaroi. Greeks called all Non-Greeks – regardless whether their skin color was White or Black or whatever – barbaroi – people speaking a foreign language. The Greeks regarded the barbaroi as being different and this led to sweeping prejudicial statements at the worst, to differentiated opinions about them at the best. The barbaros, as cultural “anti-model”, which suggests despotism, submissiveness, excessive luxury, wildness or rudeness has its roots in the refusal of “the Persian barbaros” who had invaded Greece in order to rob the Greeks’ of their freedom. This meaning culminates in the anti-Barbarian racism of Aristotle (Politics 1252b5-9): barbaroi are slaves by nature. But on the other side an interest in and an appreciation for the variety of people and the cultural creations of barbaroi arose. Here the term barbaroi often is used as objective, descriptive expression for people who belonged to another nation or who lived outside Greece, respectively outside these areas where inhabited by Greeks"[2]

I have other references, most notably by H. R. Ellis Davidson and in Peter Wells' The Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe[http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Speak-Conquered-Peoples-Europe/dp/0691089787], but am out of town and away from my books. Usage of the term "barbarian" is just plain laziness in most of the instances it currently appears in Decline of the Roman Empire.- WeniWidiWiki 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, specific names should be used when available. There were a lot of tribes, and a lot of tribes with no names we know existed. We refer to them as a group as Barbarian like with the term "Indian". Also, if we name specific tribes, we by default exclude others, which has to be done carefully. You referenced Peter Wells. Amazon Look Inside shows he uses the term Barbarian 72 times, or on roughly %20 of the books pages - Peter is not lazy, it just doesn't make sense to keep repeating the same list of "tribes" over and over with an "etc.." catch-all. For one, it costs less money to print. That's not lazy, just common fiscal sense - and it spares the reader from banal prose. Authors on Wikipedia often do the same thing, for the same reason we say "Indian" instead of listing every tribe in America. -- Stbalbach 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of confusing the term "German" with "Germanic." Nobody here wants the term "German" used, which would be ridiculous and incorrect. There is a huge difference between Germanic and German. :bloodofox: 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I meant Germanic. Even that would be inaccurate/incomplete though, as not all barbarians were Germanic. JChap2007 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, it's a mistake a lot of people seem to be making in this discussion. The argument is that the term is too general, carries negative connotations due to the very origins of the word and, really, it doesn't do anyone a service to just lump a bunch of groups together under a single slur when you could be specific and precise about it. :bloodofox: 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm ... I agree that the anachronistic (and often incorrect) use of German/Germanic should be avoided, but I don't know that "barbarian" is always the answer. Often, "barbarian" avoids historical specificity. For example, are we talking about Huns, Goths, Lombards, Visigoths, etc. My personal preference would be for the most precise and accuarate term possible, which is my main objection to "barbarian." I find it to be occassionally helpful, when placed in proper historical context; but would usually avoid it, prefering to name the "outsiders" in question. Pastordavid 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with this, but in at least some places where barbarian is used, it is used to make a general statement and refer to too many of those tribes to make listing all of them feasible. JChap2007 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• No argument from me on that point. I hate say without an example of context, but that would probably be a one of those occasional times that I would not mind using/reading it. Pastordavid 03:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So when discussing the indigenous peoples of North America, would it be appropriate to refer to them as "savages" when it is too difficult to detail all the specific tribes in question? I don't agree. - WeniWidiWiki 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot: in previous discussions User:Bloodofox mentioned a source for why Barbarian should not be used, saying "Modern Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionist groups, for example, shun the word as it is anciently slanted towards Roman POV"[3]. I've never heard of Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionism before, I don't know what it is, and don't know where to find that source. If Bloodofox can't provides the source, perhaps User:WeniWidiWiki, or anyone else who is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism, could help out? If nothing else, this needs to be mentioned in the barbarian article, as part of the historiography and changing political nature of the term in the modern era. -- Stbalbach 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I study new religious movements, fringe groups and cults and frequently edit articles about them. My personal interests are not tools for you to impeach my intelligence or credibility, and I seriously resent your lack of assuming good faith in this matter. Are you going to go on another one of your paranoid rants demonizing all those who hold differing opinions similar to the numerous examples you have previously offered on the talk page of Decline of the Roman Empire? - WeniWidiWiki 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, I'm just asking for more information about "Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionism", since this is the only source that has been mentioned by the anti-Barbarian side. I'm not sure why your taking it personally and getting defensive there is nothing wrong with Neopaganism! "Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionism" was the only source mentioned, which is why I brought it up. I was hoping you, or someone else familiar with Neopaganism, would be able to provide some light on what "Germanic Neopagan Reconstructionism" is, I have no idea. -- Stbalbach 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well being that you are editing at an encyclopedia, there is Germanic neopaganism and Polytheistic reconstructionism right at your fingertips. Just to set the record straight, none of my reservations on the usage of the term are predicated upon how adherents of either of these thought-forms feel about the matter. - WeniWidiWiki 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WeniWidiWiki. -- Stbalbach

Hi. I'm responding to the RFC for this page. Although "barbarian" was often used as a term by Romans for non-Romans, it is not a neutral term. Even though the Romans often used the term, it was a biased term then and it's a biased term now. It would be like writing an article about Racism in the American South and using the word "nigger" instead of "black" because it was the term used at the time. A pejorative term is a pejorative term no matter which way you slice it; and as such, it doesn't belong as the primary term for a group or set of groups. Certainly it should be made known that Romans called them "Barbarians", but "Barbarians" shouldn't be used as the default word. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No one suggested it be a default. The word has multiple meanings and only makes sense in the context of its usage. For mainstream academic use, see for example Encyclopedia Britannica on Barbarian. -- Stbalbach 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that none of these 'contexts' are neutral due to the definition and history of the word. Not to mention popular usage. Barbarous, anyone? :bloodofox: 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We keep going round in circles - yes, the definition is not historically neutral, that is clear and understood, you are right. However, what you have not recognized is the art and craft of the history profession and its usage of historical terms, even pejorative ones, in scholarly articles - Middle Ages, Barbarian, Renaissance, Ancient Regime - are all pejorative terms which are widely used in a neutral manner by historians - they describe things in a historical context, they don't reflect the users opinions about them. They are neutral descriptors and not the historians personal value judgment. This is done to avoid anachronisms and it increases the historical understanding and perspectives of the period by using historically accurate terms. It appears, to me, the only reason you have a problem with Barbarian (and not Middle Ages which BTW is equally if not even more offensive to the Germanic peoples and others), is because of barbarian has a "popular" meaning - which, in the context of a scholarly article, is further discussed at Barbarian#Modern academia and so is not an issue. -- Stbalbach 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbarian#Modern academia which is original research at it's finest. So when the Romans themselves used descriptors other than barbarian to describe which tribes made the best horsemen (Vegetius) and to describe particular groups like Gauls, Raetians, Pannonians, Sarmatians and Dacians (Tacitus) they were writing anachronistically? Seems to me they were using precision. - WeniWidiWiki 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, use the names available. No one is suggesting Barbarian must be used everywhere - rather, that it is acceptable within some contexts. For example in this Encyclopedia Britannica article. It is perfectly acceptable and does not infer that Encyclopedia is bigoted against anyone. They are using a historical term, just like they might use the term Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalbach, I am appreciative of your honesty and effort towards your position in this case - it is clear and apparent you make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, I must reiterate that I am personally not OK with anything on Wikipedia that violates WP:NPOV - no matter the background of the term. :bloodofox: 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. NPOV is important, so let me ask a question. Did you know that "Gothic architecture", "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance" are terms that historically denigrate the barbarians, the Germanic peoples in particular, as well as the Catholic Church? Do you recommend these terms be removed from Wikipedia? If not, why not? -- Stbalbach 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Start an RfC on those and we can get into it. :bloodofox: 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just wanted to know what you thought, guess that's it then. -- Stbalbach 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this area supposed to be for outside comments? You guys sort of took it over. I think all three of you need to show some control. There's no need to leap to conclusions, or assume bad faith, or anything of the sort.

Now, the fact is that the term 'barbarian' is used in academic parlance to refer to the same groups that the Greeks and Romans used it to refer to (it is a mistake to think that the Greeks or Romans used the term as a slur. It's more about a collective and willful ignorance to make distinctions between tribes than a judgment of character. It was an insult to call a citizen a barbarian basically because you're calling them a NON citizen and/or someone who can't speak the language correctly, neither of which were good things in that culture). Since academic circles use this term, we should too. There is no Wiki policy that claims we should lower standards of language in order to cowtow to people who just don't know any better. If someone sees 'barbarian' in an article on ancient Rome and gets confused, they will click its wikilink, go to its own article page, and learn something (and, I might add, something very valuable regarding how ideas of cultural and linguistic superiority permeate our tradition and affect our culture today). Now, if the source gives the tribes, you name the tribes in the FIRST mention of the source and then you say 'barbarians' (meaning, of course, the non-Romans) in the second mention for brevity and clarity. 'Barbarian' is not a POV term. It's not even an NPOV term. There IS no VIEW here. Barbarian within the academic context of ancient history refers to those who either were not Greek or were not Roman (the Greeks, by the way, called the Romans barbarians). The modern connotation of the word does not apply here. Academic language and academic consensus is the way to go here. After all, Wiki wants to be an encyclopedia (and beyond that, an encyclopedia that can actually be used in research). So, in general, we should use specifics where we have them, but otherwise always defer to academic terminology. CaveatLector^Talk 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that (the bold recommendation). -- Stbalbach 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing

As CaveatLector pointed out above, the original editors have become the main contributors to this RfC. As such, I thought it might not be a bad idea to summarize a little. As I read through the conversation, the consensus from the outside comments seems to be as follows:

Use specific tribe/nation names whenever possible. When this is not possible, use the word "barbarian," - making every effort to place the word in the proper historical context.

This sounds to me like an adequate compromise to the situation at hand; I hope that it will be to the original editors involved. -- Pastordavid 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am completely fine with this, as long as usage of the term stays in quotes to dictate that they are being referred to as outsiders by Roman POV. :bloodofox: 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree to this usage as stated. - WeniWidiWiki 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this usage as stated. I don't agree the term should be in quotes, unless the term is used in an article that is out of its normal academic context, where there may be confusion. The notion that historians, or Wikipedians, are using the term in a POV manner has no basis in reality, such a POV does not exist in academia (except in some fringe political groups or individuals personal opinions). Barbarian would also profit by being linked to Barbarian#Modern academia, and that the focus should be on improving that section to a common consensus about its usage in modern academia. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage the use of the term "barbarian" only where it appears in quotes from sources. There, of course, it is not only appropriate but necessary--you do not modify quotations without clearly indicating that you have done so, and in this case, there is no reason to, as this term is considered an appropriate one in modern scholastic usage... when discussing a certain period, from a certain point of view. Other than in this situation, I feel it would be better to substitute another term--the proper name of the tribe/nation, where available. If not, the region being referred to; if the reference is to "any foreigner" (e.g. "the Roman army contained large numbers of barbarians"--I made that up; don't look for it in the article), then simply say "foreign soldiers," "non-Romans," "non-Latins," etc. I would discourage using the term "barbarian" in such instances--in quotation marks or otherwise.

In particular, I would see any appearance of the word "barbarian" occur in such a context that it is clear that it is reflecting the views of the civilization under discussion. I agree with Stbalbach that a link to the modern academic usage of this word would help--so that it can be clearly stated just what the modern academic usage is (and if is considered controversial in that context, and if so, why)--unless we'd rather just add this to the main Barbarian page, rather than as a separate link. (This would probably depend on the length of the "academic usage" discussion.)

Stbalbach frequently compares the use of "barbarian" with that of "Indian"--without observing that "Indian" is itself regarded as pejorative by many Native Americans. (Nor did I see anyone else noting this; don't know if I missed it.) What is the Wiki policy on the use of "Indian" vs. "Native American"? Any decision on "barbarian" should probably be similar--and certainly should take the policy about the use of "Indian" into account. (This may require a review of that policy as well.) (I would add that I personally find the use of the term "Indian" ambiguous and confusing; wherever I see it, I always think first of the Subcontinent. That's a separate discussion, though.) -- Vyasa Ozsvar 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian" is itself regarded as pejorative by many Native Americans - well, that is largely a myth. The vast majority of Indians prefer Indian and find Native American offensive. Native American is a 1960s academic construct which Indians see as an attempt to erase their history and traditions. This is discussed in more detail at Native American name controversy. I don't think the Barbarian/Indian comparison can be made too closely. -- Stbalbach 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The pertinent policy to the term barbarian, which no one has mentioned yet, is Naming Conventions (Identity), especially the section on self identification which reads, "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use;" and the section titled be neutral that reads: "Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used... Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders. However, do not be so general as to render terms meaningless."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs).

I did cite WP:NCI and asked everyone else to do the same. Most of my assertions are predicated directly on this policy. Re-read my statement. :-D Also, Vyasa Ozsvar, you are totally correct equating the usage of "indian" and "savage" with "barbarian". - WeniWidiWiki 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NCI is a guideline not policy and deals with controversial issues. WP:OR is a policy. We report on, and use, the terminology used by mainstream academics. Anything more is Original Research. There is no controversy about the use of the term barbarian. If it was controversial then we might have something to discuss, but there is no controversy. Except, apparently, on Wikipedia :) -- Stbalbach 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The term 'non-Romans' is not academic by any stretch of the imagination and should not be used in an encyclopedia that is aiming to be a research guide for those writing papers or such. If you wrote a paper with 'non-Romans' in a research paper, you'd get red-inked...because there is a much better use in the term 'barbarian', which has an academic tradition behind it. Not only that, but everyone is making the false comparison to the 'indian-native american' paradigm. The analog her with 'barbarian' is 'native american' (since it is a term that is used to describe a vast variety of a regional people who belong to many different tribes). What it being suggested by some here is actually the replacing of 'indian' OR 'native american' in articles with either a list of tribes, or by the term 'non-colonialists'.

If you want Wikipedia to have academic credibility, please use academic language. When the trend for that language changes, change the article (that's the beauty of the wiki), but not before. CaveatLector^Talk 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are creating a false dilemma. The correct analog would be "the replacing of "indian" OR "savage" in articles with either a list of tribes, or by the term "native american." Furthermore, I've not seen any actual references provided that justify the blanket usage of barbarian - only false corollaries of "an author uses the word barbarian" < "because he's an author he must be unbiased" < "therefore the usage of the term "barbarian" is not a pejorative". This is not critical thinking, this is laziness. I thought we had reached a consensus on usage, already. Are you stating we should have an even looser usage of barbarian than is detailed further up the page? - WeniWidiWiki 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I am perfectly happy with the idea I suggested. That is, to use barbarian when we do not have the names of the specific tribes involved. Others have suggested abolishing the word outright unless it is in quotes. That is nonsense, and unacademic. And i am not suggesting authors are unbiased (ANY author, ANYWHERE, in ANY forum, INCLUDING the Wiki is biased. The idea of a completely 'unbiased' article is impossible to achieve). If you wish, you can go to your local library and search the L'Annee Philologique which will not only give articles grouped into the category of 'barbarians', but will contain plenty of articles referring to these tribes as such. CaveatLector^Talk 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We are starting to go in circles here. To keep this conversation from starting to go over ground that has already been covered, I would suggest that we close this RfC. I have posted the above recommendation (which seemed to be accepted by general consensus) on the Barbarian talk page. Pastordavid 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider who participated in none of the discussion, but has just now reviewed the whole lot, and noticed the relatively long passage of time since Pastordavid's suggestion for closing, I have moved the entry from the RFC page to the RFC/user conduct/archive page (apologies for lack of wiki formatting) Petershank 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tribal" designations

This discussion may have run its course, but I thought it important to respond to suggestions that greater "precision" would be brought by using specific "tribal" names rather than the covering term "barbarian". There seems to be general consensus that "barbarian" is POV: the Greeks used it pejoratively to describe hairy people who didn't understand city life; the Romans used it to describe, well, non-Roman people (amusingly, including some Greek-speakers); medieval Christian writers (Roman writers' former barbari) used it to describe non-Christians who rode horses well (or sailed ships well), shot arrows (or wielded battle axes), and tended to take their stuff and burn their villages. Fair enough. It should be realized, however, that terms like "Gothi", "Vandali", and the rest are just as POV: they are products, as Herwig Wolfram, Walter Goffart, and many others have pointed out in many contexts, of the Roman ethnographic imagination, which sought to reduce the mess of societies and peoples outside its limes into sensible, classical categories of "peoples" (Gk. ethnoi) or "nations" (nationes). The perfect example of this is "the Franks", a group designation applied by the Romans, on the basis of a N. Germanic term for free men, to what Patrick Geary has described memorably as a "tribal swarm" living in the region of the modern-day Low Countries. That Franci came to describe an ethnic and political entity was a product of self-identification and political hegemony exercised by strongmen from the group like Chlothar, who accepted Roman military titles, allowed themselves to be crowned as "kings" over their rivals (and proceeded to crush them militarily), and adopted the religion of their Roman counterparts (Christianity).

The point, in short, is that "Goths", "Franks", and the like are no less POV than "barbarian", albeit less disparaging; the groups that they describe were not ethnically-distinct entities, but products of foreign categorization followed by indigenous processes of self-reidentification. At the same time, like "barbarian", these terms are used by mainstream medieval historians, albeit advisedly and cautiously. The latter two adverbs, perhaps, should be our callwords when deciding how to describe these people, their relationships with Rome and late-antique society, and their self-conceptions. SGilsdorf 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)