Talk:Greek (name)

The new country was officially named "Kingdom of the Hellenes" (later "Hellenic Republic"), or Hellas, and the people "Hellenes". In many countries, the modern Hellenes are called Greeks and their country Greece, while in other countries, especially in Asia, they are called Yunan and their country Yunanistan, from the Turkish word Yunan, derived from the Greek geographical term Ionia. In Turkey, Greeks from Greece are called Yunan, but ethnic Greeks in Turkey are called Rum, from Greek Rhomaioi.

usually the words that the countries in Asia use are not derived from the Turkish but from the Persian (the Persian word is derived from the Greek geographical term Ionia).

as the new nation turned to the glory of the Ancient Hellenes as a source of national pride and inspiration.

Please discuss whether this should be in the article here, rather than edit-warring :

Thanks Septentrionalis 16:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For

• Ok, the Greeks chose Hellas rather than "Grekia" or "Rumiosini". Why? Was it at random, or was there a reason? Actually there were many opinions on the subject, and most revolutionary leaders fought as "Grekoi", but Capodistrias and the western-educated elite that came with Otto went for Hellas. This came as a package with a whole set of policies to revive "hellenic glory" (katharevousa, spending all the education money on philosophy and literature when the new nation could really use some veterinarians, etc). If there is an opposing view as to why "hellas" was selected, it can be added here, but some explanation is needed Sysin 18:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Against

Major Update

The article on the history of names of the Greeks was rather poor (and rather inaccurate) so I took the liberty of re-writing it, hopefully for the better. The only disadvantage I think it has is its length. It may be too lengthy for the purposes of Wikipedia, but I think its necessary for the names to be attached together for the better of the whole. The section of one name puts the next section in prespective. I havent rule out yet seperation and editing into a "series" of a sort, especially since the article in unfinished. I intend to continue writing into the Ottoman and Modern era with at least two or three more section added. With that, the article will definitely exceed the recommended 32KB limit, but I'll try to minimize it by removing unecessary information from the whole. Its appearence is also too "essayistic" and hard to the eye, without any pictures, but I plan to make it more readable, in time.

For now, and as it is, I think overall it's a great improvement over the previous article.--

Too long, too esoteric

Quite honestly, I disagree. It is perhaps interesting to someone already familiar with the subject, but as an article for someone wishing to learn the basics, this is just too confusing.

The subject often comes up. As a Greek American, I've been asked "so the Greeks are gone, and now the hellenes live in Greece in their place, right?" by a well meaning wasp friend. The previous article answered the question in a format that would help my friend "get it". The average person would probably stop reading the new article after the first few hundred words.

As Greeks, we have a great history. We should promote it. Look at how brands effectively promote themselves today. Quick, clear and to the point.

I am not going to revert the article myself. I hope you will. Most of the information you added belongs in other articles that could be linked from this page. Sysin 21:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt just for the basics

I dont think that quality must necessarily be against quanitity, although I do agree with you that the article in its current state may be discouraging to casual readers who might see it "bulky". I dont understand though why we should limit ourselves to a brief article. Wikipedia isnt aimed for the quick reader only, and many, if not most articles go into depth on the topic they deal with. Briefness sets an upper limit to the quality aspired for and given the subject, there's simply no way for it to be credible unless we're willing to go into depth. Having that said, I agree that there's room for improvement in the article as far as readability goes.

The problem is that we need to explain and justify how the greeks came to have so many names, and not just list the names with a three sentense summary beneath each one. The reader, anyway, needs not finish the whole thing on one go. Articles are divided into sections for that very reason: to guide him through the subject and enabling him to jump into any section any time. It was never my intention to leave the article at is current state but the previous article was far too short on information to the degree of misdirection. It dealt only partly with the plurality of the Greek names and most importantly, offered no justification whatsoever for its sources. For such an oblivious subject we need to be as scrupulous as possible.

As a Greek myself, I too used to wonder how we had come to have 7 different names when others have 1, 2 or 3 at best. And when I began researching I discovered a vast literature on the subject I never knew existed, proving how complicated the subject is, even for academics.

These are the points that I think need at least to be raised for a comprehensive article are:

1) Pelasgian - the name encompassing all Helladic tribes during the Prehistoric era.

2)Achaeans - the name of the Greeks during Homer.

3)Hellenes - the name of the Greeks during and prior classical antiquity.

4) Hellenes and Barbarians - how non-Greeks also came to be known as Hellenes during late antiquity.

5) Hellenists - why non-Greeks came to be known as Hellenes during late antiquity.

6) Graeci - the name Greeks came to be known from the West.

7) Yunan - the name the Greeks came to be known from the East.

8) Infidel Hellenes - why Hellene came to mean pagan during the middle ages.

9) Romans - the name of the Greeks during the middle ages.

10) Byzantines - the name the Greeks of the middle ages are known by today.

11) Revival of Hellene - how Hellene re-acquired its classical meaning during the middle ages.

12) Constest between Hellenes, Romans, Graeci - the dilemma of the Greeks to choose one of the three names after Independence from the Ottomans.

13)Final disputes - Popular reaction in the 20th cent. against the promotion of Hellene over Romans and Graeci.

The numbers above dont correspond to respective sections in the article which may include one or more points.

The older article focused on 3), 6), 7) and 9), with brief references to 12) and 13). While 1) may be neglected since academics themselves are divided over the issue, the rest of the points are far too important to be left out. There is no explanation on why the Greeks changed their name from Danaoi to Hellenes and why they later dumped Hellenes for Romans, which is the most important development. The first questions non-Greeks ask themselves is why did the Greeks change their name (Hellene) in the first place? That is why I focused so much on 4) and 5)- in order to explain the developments that were to follow. There's also a problem with: "While in general the citizens of the Byzantine Empire were called Romans, the Greeks assumed the name Græco to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Byzantines." This falsely suggests that the various peoples of the empire were Romans in a strictly legal sense only, while maintaining their own ethnonyms seperately, when infact Greeks were much more Roman in both legal and national contexts than anybody else. Non Greeks had their own seperate identities. The article also fails to explain why or how the name Hellene came to suggest attachment to old religions, or how it later lost this attachment. In general the article was more incomplete than wrong, but it suffered the most from the lack of citation. Without references to back up a statement, anybody can claim his own opinion as the truth and distort the text, and nobody would have any sources to defend with.

We should not revert for the sake of brevity. Overinformation can be as bad as misdirection so we should work on delivering more efficiently the correct information, than settleing with lower quality just because its easier to read.

So far, I've completed 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) and 10), with 11), 12), and 13) pending. On my part, I'll do my best to re-write each section, cutting away excess text and rephrasing, making it easier to read. I'm not trying to enforce myself over others. I realize that you have spent time in making that article and I respect that. I just think that there are so much more that need to be told in this article.Colossus 09:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==

To combine quantity and readability, you need structure. The sequence above lacks an easy-to-follow structure, being neither a pure enumeration, nor a time line. For example, it might appear to the casual reader that the Greeks were at one point called by others "Infidel Hellenes". I propose something more easy for the reader to follow:

1. Intro
2. Names
   1. Pre-homeric and homeric names.
   2. Hellenes
   3. Greeks
   4. Yunan
   5. Romans (Each of the above no more than 250-300 words. Word origin and context. Essentially sections 2.1 through 2.5 are the article in the previous form, with any corrections that need to be made). Note that Byzantine is not in the list; no Greek ever called himself Byzantine, nor did anyone ever use it to refer to their contemporary Greeks.
3. Historical timeline
   1. Pre-christian (before 3rd century CE)
   2. Byzantine and Ottoman period
   3. Modern
4. References

The point of separating the enumeration from the timeline is to let the reader get a grasp of the basic notions first, without forcing him to go through pages of details. After that is accomplished, the reader who wants more can keep reading. My point is that you can edit the article back to a readable form, without removing one iota of content.Sysin 15:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==

My structure is a timeline. What could be more strightforward than that? The article progresses linearly from Homer's time and (is scheduled) to end in modern times. The problem with explaining the basic notions first (the names themselves) is explaining the transition from one name to the next. Although I dont understand why you render the other sections of less importance. If we to move the transition period sections to the bottom of the article while keeping the names listed on the top altogether, the reader will only end up more confused by not understanding the progress from one name to the next. An experienced historian may prefer your structure where all names are gathered together, but no average reader would be interested in reading a history of the names without simultaneously understanding their development.

An average reader wont understand why the Greeks came to be known as Romans in the first place, or why Hellenes became a synonym for pagan, only that they just did. Forcing him to jump from one section to the other and back again to fill those gaps isnt efficient. Far from a easy-to-follow structure. Keeping the transition sections in their natural order between names is absolutely necessary.

If its the length that still troubles you I have already began removing parts and will continue to do so making it as short as possible. An idea I think would work for the both of us perhaps is creating an infobox on the top listing only the names of the Greeks with shortcuts next to them linking straight to the corresponding sections in the article. That way, quick readers will be able to jump directly into the desired names without being obstructed from other details while in the same time maintaining the historical progress of the article.Colossus 22:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gibbon

When interest did arise, English historians prefered to use Roman terminology (Edward Gibbon used it in a particularily belittling manner); while French historians prefered to call it Greek.

Comments:

• Anglo-Saxon is probably unnecessary (it's as fancy as 'Hellene'), unless there was an American Byzantinist before 1850.
• Gibbon's manner is no guide to the manner of his countrymen.
• Are you sure this distinction is true? Even Gibbon used "Greek empire" sometimes. Septentrionalis 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==

Yes, the distinction holds. Both "schools" of Byzantine historiography used both terminologies, only that the English relied more heavily in interpreting history in Roman terms, while the French did so in Greek terms. In short Gibbon used Roman much more often than Greek while the Franch did the reverse. But in the end were all smashed down by the Germans who used Byzantine more than everybody.:)Colossus 22:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)