Talk:Krifo scholio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sources needed

I created this article and put up a few 'sources needed' warnings myself. I think the overall content of the article is referenced well enough for the moment, but I appreciate that those details need to be fixed. I'll do that as soon as I find the time. Lukas 09:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove POV from article.

This is wikipedia and the inforation shown in the article needs to have a certain standard and a Neutral point of View (see: NPOV), at the moment it doesn’t, this article is ridiculously biased, uncited and one sided and reeks of POV from top to bottom, instead of putting more detailed information about the underground schooling the auther chose to focus on several skeptics outlandish theories. The whole article needs to be rewritten/modified ASAP. Hopefully the original author and I can take turns at editing this! Lex Luther 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, if somebody can cite comparably reputable academic sources for the existence of secret schools. Right now, I'm not aware that any serious modern scholar asserts that they existed. To the best of my knowledge, the work of Angelou stands unchallenged. It's even the position reflected in the current Greek school books. But of course I could be wrong. Got sources? If not, I'll probably revert to the previous version. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Just to make clear in advance where the debate is: I think it's pretty uncontroversial that there was schooling of a small-scale, privately organized, inofficial character. (Wasn't much different in other parts of Europe, or in Byzantium for that matter.) We can include that in the article if you like. Only there doesn't seem to be any evidence that these activities were illegal. The sentence you introduced states that as a fact, and that now really is an unsourced POV statement. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lex Luthor, you are making very strong claims. You need to back them up with sources. LukasPietsch has supplied several good, recent sources published in reputable journals (some available on the Web), and moreover has provided much excellent content for many other articles, so I have the highest respect for his scholarship and open-mindedness. Now, it is true that the content of the article may be surprising to those of us who read Greek children's books -- I still have one with the Gyzis painting on the cover -- but that is no reason to call the article biased and one-sided. Have you read the articles he cites? Danos discusses the debate over Angelou's article in the Greek press, for example. Even the one scholar who thought there might be some truth to the Secret Schools lamented that there were no good sources for them! And everyone else agreed with Angelou.

Perhaps Angelou and Danos's articles are controversial or have been decisively refuted in more recent work. In that case, please add that information to the article. Please do not add unreferenced claims which contradict standard scholarship, for example that the Ottomans prohibited schooling "in the languages of Christian subject peoples". It is certainly not true as a blanket statement. After all, there were certainly Christian (and Jewish) schools in 19th century Thessaloniki; there were competing Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian schools in Ottoman Macedonia during the Macedonian Struggle. Perhaps you can find evidence that it was true in earlier periods? If so, the claim should be properly sourced and qualified. --Macrakis 19:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-kryfo-scholio sources?

i've added Gritsopoulos as an academic defending kryfa scholeia. Gotta say, having leafed through it, the tone of the paper is godawfully tubthumping and amateurish (evil Turks this, lust for knowledge that, half the paper spent on a rambling muse about greek education in antiquity and Byzantium), he places a lot of faith in that Feggaraki song, and he actually undermines himself by seeking to prove that Gennadius Scholarius continued greek higher education for the first couple of centuries. His only substantive argument at least in that paper is that there are placenames called Kryfa Scholeia near monasteries. If we can trust that the names were not cooked up in the 19th century, that is something that needs to be explained. But it certainly has not yet reversed the scholarly consensus. Opoudjis 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your addition. Have you got the publication year? He's quoted with a similar title, but in a different journal, on this ranting website: [1], that article was apparently from 1962.

Added both. And as has already been mentioned, the fact that much education was done informally, with monastic initiative, does not prove that there was a concerted Ottoman policy of suppressing education in Greek (which, given that the Rum millet ran itself day-to-day and the eminence of the Phanariots in Ottoman administration, would make no sense), or that the monks were secretly inculcating in their pupils an identity based on Hellenism, as opposed to Christianity. Opoudjis 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)