Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Names of the Greeks

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Names of the Greeks

edit

Self nomination. A history of the national names of the Greeks from antiquity to modern times. I re-wrote the old article almost from scratch adding an excellent reference source. Didnt receive any critic from its peer review so I moved it on to here. Comments are welcome. Colossus 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's a very informative article.Odysseas 18:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Provides information most people are ignorant with. It should be linked with all articles of Greek history. Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very impressive, and a marvelous addition to Wikipedia. Hydriotaphia 18:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative, and had it been featured earlier, might have kept me from having to do this explanation at Talk:Náfplio. --Jpbrenna 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:Greek colonization of Italy.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article with lots of references. But Carnildo's objection above needs to be met. Lisiate 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to the lack of bibliography. No studies have been made on the word yunan, and those that do only care to scratch the surface. My knowledge of the matter would barely cover a paragraph, all of it un-referenced. Basicaly, that modern middle eastern nations trace Yunan to the ancient Persians who came into contact with the Ionians occupying the western coast of Asia Minor and then extended it to all Greeks. It seemed to me that such short and un-substantiated material didnt rise to the level of the rest of the article. Colossus 06:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • nice article, but no vote: the title is inherently pov, suggesting that "the Greeks" were a sort of unchanging entity over 4000 years. The very first sentence smacks of nationalism, if not outright racism. If I click on Greeks, I am told that this nation populated Greece since the 17th century BC. "they"? The Mycenaeans were displaced in 1200 BC, and their dialect died out with Arcado-Cypriot. "Greece", the land they are supposed to have inhabited for 3700 years, I am told is also known as the "Hellenic Republic", established 1829. The third sencence talks about "The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae". What is this? A nationalist pamphlet? the only thing missing are adjectives like 'glorious' or 'noble'. It should be made clear that the only common factor tying these entities together is linguistic descendence from Proto-Greek. That's right, there is no "Greece" tied to the concept of "Greek". the Ρωμαίοι were centered in Byzantium, which is not in "Greece". They were called "Romans", not "Hellenes" for a good reason. I suggest a move to Names of the Greek speaking peoples or something. Also, a section about the Yavana (Indo-Greeks) would be nice. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title only suggests that the Greeks have more than one national names - a statement of fact. The opening sentense is just the title reformated and the question of historical continuity isnt even raised indirectly. I cannot understand where you saw the racism in any of the above, or in the third line for that matter. Stating that a soldier fell when he did isnt nationalism. Also, in the later half of your post you mention that linguistic descendance is the only tying factor throughout Greek history, ostensibly implying that the Ancient Greeks, Byzantines and modern Greeks are distinct peoples. This theory defies academic consensus,other Wikipedia articles, and as orignal research doesnt belong here. Lingual descendance is partial, not exclusive, proof of Greek contintuity, and the History of Greece series makes that clear on every level. This article deals with terminology and its causes, so you'll have to be specific on your objections. On the Yavana issue, I dont think it requires a section of its own. The short number of Greeks that lived there reigned as kings or royalty and for a short period of time. They never diverged from existing terminology and as far as I know considered themselves Hellenes. If you know more please mention. Colossus 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the comment above is a big overreaction. As Colossus says, "fell" is a completely neutral word. (Come to think of it, it's a word that's used in all Indo-European languages to describe dying: cadere, fallen, πιπτειν, etc.) The article deals with the names of the peoples who have, over time, lived in the place we now call Greece. I don't think the title is inconsistent with that; I think a longer title would be awkward and wouldn't add much. I also think that, with due respect, accusations of racism are extraordinarily inappropriate here. Not only is the article devoid of racism—i.e., the deprecation or glorification of people based merely on ethnicity—but calling the article racist is just unproductive. Such name-calling obscures; it doesn't clarify. Hydriotaphia 00:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • They were called "Romans", not "Hellenes" for a good reason. They called Romans only by themselves, the foreigners referred to them as Greeks. Byzantines did use the word 'greek', it was the word 'Hellene' that had become synonymous to a Pagan (up until some time anyway). And besides, nobody said that the contemporary state of Greece is inhabited by the same Greek-speaking who were there in the middle-ages. Half of the modern Greek population are "Byzantine" immigrants from Asia Minor, Thrace and Constantinople, who started moving in after the Greco-Turkish war of 1922. Miskin 02:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't object to the expression "soldiers fell", entirely appropriate for the Thermopylae article. I am objecting that falling soldiers even appear in the intro of an article entitled Names of the Greeks. I'm sorry, that simply reeks of propaganda, the episode is entirely unrelated to the article's topic, and all it does is reinforce the "blut and boden" connection. "Greeks" historically are not defined as "inhabitants of Greece", but as "people speaking the Greek language", i.e. including all colonies etc. I did not vote 'oppose' because the article is well done, content-wise. You can really tell it was written by Greek patriots, that's all. That wouldn't matter much if the information is right, but I do think that our featured articles should have a little higher standard of NPOV. I do not object to the title, I was pointing out that Greeks has a problem, but that's not what we are discussing here. But seriously:
        The soldiers that fell at Thermopylae did so as Hellenes, while centuries later when Jesus preached his beliefs any person of non-Jewish faith was a Hellene.
        this is nonsense. "while centuries later" is already oxymoronic. "Jesus preached" in Palestine, and had likely never heard of "Hellenes". I suppose that sentence is an attempt at a literary style, but it really sticks out like an essayist's sore thumb. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the New Testament (that was written in Greek by Jews) used the word Έλληνες to describe all people of non-jewish faith, you can look that up for yourself. I don't know whether it was personally Jesus who promoted it or just a trend of the Apostols. This terminology sources from the Hellenistic period of Israel and the Diadochs. It would be impossible for Jesus or any Jewish person to not know of the word "Hellen", if for no other reason just because of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I agree that Greeks refers by default to all Greek-speaking people and not just the ones of Greece. Therefore the word Greeks doesn't have to be substituded with 'Greek-speaking' as you suggested earlier. Miskin 11:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • dab probably hasnt even read the article, otherwise he would've noticed that Saint Paul - a contemporary of Jesus - is mentioned as the earliest source using Hellene in a religious manner, which proves Jesus was aware of the word. He also insists on accusing the article of POV, that is of false facts, and all the while refrains from being specific which facts are distorted. His only argument was that Greek in antiquity implied Greek speakers only, despite the article making it clear that there existed a definite sense of Greek nationality that supersced common language. I suggest that dab first reads the entire article and then gathers enough points to back up his case in the article's talk page, which I promise I will reply to immediately if he chooses to continue. Colossus 14:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Having thought about it, I agree that "Greeks" refers to "Greek-speakers." However, the article isn't just about Greek-speakers, and here's why. To deal with the semantic twists and turns of the term "Hellene," you've got to deal, at least tangentially, with much of the ancient near east. This is especially true if you discuss the period during which Hellene took on a religious, not a primarily cultural or linguistic, meaning. Thus "Names of the Greek-speakers" is just as inaccurate a summary of the article's content as "Names of the Greeks." But unless we want to have a horribly awkward title—e.g., "The history of terms used during at least one period to refer to Greek speakers"—I think "Names of the Greeks" is a fine title. If you want to create a few redirect pages, that's also fine. I would again stress, however, that there is absolutely nothing nationalistic about the sentence to which dab refers, either explicitly or in its subtext. And how is "while centuries later" oxymoronic? I think you're perhaps looking for a different adjective. (I also think it's a fairly elegant sentence, especially given the fact that—like the rest of the article, I presume?—it wasn't written by a native speaker of English.) I would therefore suggest, dab, that if you want to object to the substance of the article, you object to something else. That would be much more productive. Hydriotaphia 22:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • Despite the support I've given, to be completely honest I can see where dab is coming from. I'm not referring to his POV on the continuity of Greek history of course, but on his remarks on the general literary character of the article. The information it provides its 100% correct, the language usage is good and the title is just fine (despite dab's POV to consider it POV), but the problem I see lies elsewhere. From the beginning 'till the end, it's just obvious that the article was compiled by a Greek, something which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think that some sections need to be reorganised, for example Jesus' reference in the prologue does sound dubious and out of context (eventhough it's correct). On the other hand "the Hellenes who fell at Thermopylae" is not a very well-chosen example, if for no other good reason because those warriors fell more like Spartans rather than just Hellenes (although they were anyway). It should also be made more clear which names did Greeks used for themselves (Achaeans, Hellenes, Romioi etc) and which names were used for the Greeks by others (Greeks, Yunan, Romans, Byzantines etc). IMHO the reference on Jesus and the Spartans is not necessary. If it's made clear that Greeks of the Classical and Jews of the Hellenistic and Roman times referred to Greeks as "Hellenes", both matters are covered. Alternatively, the reference on Jesus and the Spartans could be more befitting in a specific context rather than the opening paragraph of the article. There are couple of small changes like those that should be done in order to reach a nearly perfect ancyclopedia article. I still vote for support because I find brilliant the idea of this article's existence. I repeat that it should be linked to all Greek history articles in order to enlighten the not-so-knowledgeable readers who for example randomly come across terms such as "Byzantines" or Greek-speaking Roman Empire" etc, etc. Miskin 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point of mentioning Jesus in the prologue is to connect the reader with a well known historical event crucial to the understanding of our subject: the use of Hellene at his time. And the point of mentioning Thermopylae is that, even though the battle serving no strategic purpose, it displayed with great fidelty Spartan solidarity to the pan-Hellenic cause. Greek nationalism peaked in the Greco-Persian Wars, and what other event more memorable than Thermopylae can represent as well the meaning of Hellene in classical antiquity? Colossus 14:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a great addition to Wikipedia, but it's not ready yet to be featured, because it should dedicate a section to Ίωνες, or "Yunan" the way Greeks are called by the Turks and the Arabs. No vote yet, expecting to add my support upon the inclusion of this. Etz Haim 02:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said above, there isnt really much to say about it, aside from the fact that modern Yunan originates from the Ionians the Persians came into contact with in the late 6th century BC. Perhaps I can integrate it in the section about Greeks, making it a Greeks and Yunans, but it wont be more than a few lines and all of it will be un-referenced. Colossus 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel its not fully incomplete without the Yunan. Greece is known as Yunan in Hindi/Sanskrit texts: " युनान " . =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe it's a very interesting article. I'll try to help.MATIA 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I found that about four of the references given at the end of the article weren't used at all, with gaps at various points (e.g. no. 1). It's very difficult to fix and be sure to be right. I've converted to template based footnotes, but using the original numbers rather than reference names. Somebody who knows the texts needs to go through and check that each reference in the article matches the correct footnote text, then remove the unused notes at the end of the article. Finally, I think that the literal "greek" characters should probably be replaced with HTML entities for ease of editing. I can't still tell if they remained correct after my work. Mozzerati 22:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments - I think that 'the Greeks' could be substituted with 'Greek-speaking peoples' for greater clarity. I also think the intro needs to summarise more of the article content, and be written in a more encyclopaedic tone. Why are the soldiers who fell at Thermopylae significant? Why mention Jesus when he had little to do with what people called Greek speakers? The sentence beginning 'The onset of every historical era...' bothers me - historical eras are generally defined by later historians and not by a change of name by which a people is known. And the final sentence also seems superfluous - of course a name by which a people are widely known is significant, and the final 'perhaps' indicates speculation rather than information. I also wonder whether 65 references is not a little excessive? It would be appropriate for an academic text but seems unnecessary for a more general text. Worldtraveller 13:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - for Worldtraveller: Jesus has to be mentioned for many reasons, one of them is that the Apostles choose to write New Testament in Greek language. The references must exist so anyone who doubts can check and verify the (ancient) sources. for Mozzerati: greek characters should be used with the polytonic template. I will try to check it and help with the references.MATIA 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no Greek-speaking peoples, only Greeks. Greek-speakers presupposes that Greek is the first language of more than one nations or peoples, which is false. Colossus 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are no fewer than 65 footnotes. Probably a new record. Please don't use footnotes for simple quotes or uncontroversial facts. Use actual inline citations (as in "...in the Iliad, Homer wrote:...") and {{inote}}s as much as possible and reserve the footnotes for when there's a real need to explain some very complicated fact that does not fit in the actual article. Basically, footnotes are not meant to state the obvious; that's what the text is for. The use of notes for citations from classical literary works like the The Republic is particularly unjustified. It's somewhat like attaching a footnote to a Bible quote. Also, the article is more about the history of the Greeks than the various names. The article is bigger than Greeks, yet it actually contains more history information than the main article. No one is going to look for most of this info under this article title. It just doesn't make sense... / Peter Isotalo 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Names_of_the_Greeks&oldid=1138467459"