Wikipedia:Peer review/Greeks/archive2

Greeks

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It has allready been worked to GA status and I wish to bring it to FA at some point. I have allready gone through the suggestions of an informal peer review by an admin and wish some further input.

Thanks, Xenovatis (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illiterate, nationalist, and tendentious, reading like a 1970-vintage Greek high school textbook; in other words, pretty much as I last saw it, a couple years ago. My condolences for those who are trying to clean it up.

Please elaborate, that would be more helpfull.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole argument over the origin of the proto-Greeks is a figment, combining arguments over linguistic, cultural, and genetic heritage as though they were the same thing. (The origins of the Indo-European languages are one of these questions; when separated out, the Caucasus should be mentioned.)

This can go.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of the first Olympic Games as an unquestioned historical fact is bad enough, but it has nothing to do with the "ethnogenesis of the Greek people"; the winner's list (if genuine) shows that it began as a purely Elean festival, and only was expanded to outlanders at the end of the century.

It's a direct quote from John Roberts (historian), which you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to check the sources.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a plagarism from a popular historian of no particular competence on Archaic Greece. See (for example) Peter Levi's edition of Pausanias, or indeed any other scholarly work on the subject less than a century old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer does not "document that the Mycenaeans were proto-Greeks" unless he documents that the Trojans were proto-Greeks (possible, but unlikely).

It wasn't clear. The passage says the Iliad suggests teh mycenaens spoke greek. Since it presents them as greeks it does.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer also presents the Trojans as speaking Greek, and having Greek names; the archaeological record shows them as having a non-Greek material culture, and there is little reason to believe they were other than Phrygian.

It will go.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were Phillip II's "pan-Hellenic ideals" other than that all of them should obey him?

The authors of the two books cited with that title might have something more to say. Plus it too is a direct quote from Columbia Encyclopedia. In any event there is a note from RL Fox that you missed perhaps.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least it argues nothing about the Macedonian Cause.

See below.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's only down to the fourth century BC.

I only asked you at 3dAlcove's suggestion. Was I right to do so? I will wait your answer.

That depends on what you want the article to be. If you want a piece of trash, saying how great the Greeks have always been, I will tag the article now, and go away. If you want to produce a decent article, stop being defensive, stop citing encyclopedias, and go read some reliable sources. Septentrionalis

PMAnderson 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions. (1) WP:RS considers encyclopedias to be RS if they are used to support specific statements, as they have in this article. Why don't you and is this shared by others? (2)When do you think the article should begin? (3)Illiterate, nationalist, and tendentious, and then stop being defensive Stop being a prat then and I will see what I can do.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are (marginally) acceptable sources. But if we do no more than compile other encyclopedias, then Wikipedia has no advantage over them, and very great disadvantages: they are not subject to routine vandalism.
Cherry-picking tertiary sources for statements which support the nationalist narrative does not lead to respectable articles.
Assertions of dated historical fact should begin with the Lelantine War. The chief trouble with the early Olympiads is that there is no particular reason for believing them to be quinquennial; although there is also no particular reason to believe the list of winners to be exactly the right number.
I commented on what the article is now. Illiterate is precise: ethnies is not an English word (and ethnics is unidiomatic in that context). I encourage improvement in all respects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.OK. That will be amended.
2.Well spotted that. Guilty. Problem is there is no english language book discussing the greeks in toto to base off. I am not even aware of any english books discussing medieval or late antiquity greek speaking christians and modern or ottoman greek speaking christians in toto.This is why I asked when you think the article should begin, i.e. do you think it should include the Greeks of ancient times or not.
- But there are plenty of such books, starting with George Finlay's History of Greece; I would expect most histories of modern Greece to start with a chapter on antiquity, although not all of them will be really current on the modern scholarship. How much material there is on the modern diaspora will vary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get agreement on where to begin? This article says modern Greece begins in 1832 (would 1821 be better?). The only obvious medieval dates are 1453, which for most of modern Greece will be the middle of the story, and 1204, which may be too early. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.Fair enough. That is a usefull point.
4.Ethnies is the word used by the cited source, Anthony D. Smith an expert on nationalism and ethnicity at LSE that has written quite a bit on Greeks. All instances of the word are attributed to his work. It should have been italicized though.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I should have looked it up. But neologisms should be avoided too; they don't communicate to most readers, and some readers will come to the same conclusion as I did: that they are not reading English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment and some questions:

The article can certainly use plenty of work (after all that's what this "request for comment" is about!) but, in all honesty, it's in much better shape than it (to the extent that I remember it) was before Xenovatis' edits (this batch and some older ones).

"Greek identity" is generally treated to a much lesser degree as somehow "essential", monolithic, unchanging; mention of the Western role in creating the modern Greek identity, for example, is made at least in one place.

The section regarding the proto-Greeks was initially mostly about language and how it (it being the "IE-to-be-Greek") came around (I'm not sure what you mean with "Caucasus" but I assume it refers to a Black Sea steppe scenario?) since it's an essential part of culture for all periods covered. The fact that a "Greeks are autochthonous in every imaginable way" user took over it for a while doesn't help much but it will be slowly cleaned up. I'm also not sure about the "genetic heritage" --is anything to that extent mentioned anywhere?-- and I assume that "cultural" refers to the pre-Greek contribution, including e.g. Minoan, and so on? Certainly it should be expanded to include those.

Regarding the ancient Greek "ethnogenesis", could you offer more concrete advice and perhaps even contribute to it? I think such matters are the hardest to cover, considering the space limitations, and a knowledgeable hand can always help.

The "Macedonian Question" could be avoided entirely with careful wording (I fear this point might always see infighting) but I'd hope it's made clear to readers that the current, mainstream view isn't that of a "panhellenic conquest of Persia" (I'll admit the latter half is poorly worded and should be rewritten; that's my fault)?

Regarding "nationalist" and "how great the Greeks have always been", I'd like to think that the article in its current form doesn't make a case for a "Greek exceptionalism" of sorts. Also, rest assured that no user currently involved wants the article to glorify but simply inform (to the extent that a single article treating so wide a subject can) and feel free to point out cases where a (or "the" as you'd have it) "national narrative" is employed. Concrete advice is always helpful. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have intentionally not looked at the edit history; I hope Xenovatis will take my comments on stuff he has not yet edited as merely indications of what remains to be done.
Cultural was meant to refer to the argument that the proto-Greeks come from X or Y because they make the same pots.
Although I do acknowledge that there seems to be much less about the question of the genetic origin of the modern Greeks, which is a definite good. We should leave all those ancient fantasies, good and bad, to rot together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were God King, I would say something like the following on ethnogenesis:

Greek history can be traced, fairly continuously, back to about 700 BC, the traditional date of the Lelantine War. Before that, various reconstructions exist, on the basis of Greek mythology, archaeological evidence, and scholarly conjecture, ancient and modern. Among the data is the existence of a Greek-speaking population in the Peloponnesus, around 1200 or 1400 BC, writing in Linear B, a script completely unrelated to the present Greek alphabet.

In 700 BC, most Greeks lived in independent city-states, the largest of which, like Athens, Sparta, and Argos, were the size of modern Greek peripheries; the smallest were villages. These sent out colonies over most of the coastline of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, wherever organized states were not strong enough to prevent them. They also formed leagues, like the Amphctyonic or the Panionian Leagues, for joint religious or military purposes. Herodotus, writing about 430 BC, records a consciousness of Greekness, based on common language, descent, religion, and custom; which of these is most important in defining Greekness has varied over the centuries.

Common descent proved to be the most malleable of these criteria; in antiquity, the Romans, the Persians, and the Jews were all declared related to the Greeks for political purposes.

Herodotus' four standards would serve as useful tools for explaining the Byzantines, who were (mostly - consider Venice) Greek by language, and were Greek Orthodox by religion, but not uniformly Greek by descent. (Galatia, Pamphylia, Armenia, Isauria, Ravenna, Syria, Sicily) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PM, thanks for the usefull pointers. I will begin implementing them. I would be happy to hear anything else you have to say. Take care.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to be listened to; if you want some more free advice, you know where my talk page is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]