Talk:Sfakians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The articles should not be merged. The Sfakia article specifically discusses a region in Crete and the Sfakians article specifically discusses the detailed history of the inhabitants of Sfakia. There is definitely nothing wrong with placing a very general history of the Sfakians in the Sfakia article. However, if this merger were to go through then the overall article would be too big to accomodate all of the information from both the Sfakia and Sfakians articles. Moreover, people would begin to remove important details about the history of the Sfakians in order to prevent the merged article from getting too big.

In short, the best course of action entails having both the Sfakia and Sfakians articles remain separate. Deucalionite 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning strikes me as fallacious. There's no reason why there should be more space available in the one article than in the other. The history of the place and the history of its inhabitants are one and the same topic. Whatever is relevant to the one is relevant to the other. If it fits in there, it'll fit in here. If it's to big for here, it was probably too big there to begin with. - True, I would personally prefer a somewhat more condensed format, but that's unrelated to the issue of the division. As these two articles are currently competing for treating the same topic, they are basically a matter of a POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep them split - this is an acceptable way of dividing potentially large articles with one about geographical features and towns and some history, and the other about dialect, culture, traditions, cuisine, some history, notable individuals, etc. Basque Country and Basque people is an appropriate example, where there is enough to say to warrant separate articles. For consistency, though, the article should be renamed Sfakian people. Incidentally, I would not propose a Cretan people article as there would not be a large amount to say distinct from general pages about Greeks, but Sfakians are a distinct group who claim a distinct lineage. Mtiedemann 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this hardly appears like a good analogy to me. Basque people are an ethnicity. Sfakians aren't. Their separateness in terms of "lineage" is most probably just spurious folklore; at least the article does nothing to substantiate such a claim. The defining criterion of what a Basque is is not that he comes from the Basque Country; but the defining criterion of what a Sfakian is is no more than this: an inhabitant of Sfakia. I find nothing in this article that couldn't just as well be in an article about the history of Sfakia, or even just the history of Crete. At the very least, the two articles should be properly linked to each other, as a "main article" (in summary style) and a "sub-article". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably i am getting it all wrong but i think the there is not reason to merge the articles because the one article is about the village of Hora Sfakion and the other one about the people living in the area of Sfakia. Merging the Articles would be the same like merging an article about the people of Maryland with the article about the city of Baltimore. If the Sfakians Article would tell you just about the people living in Hora Sfakion i would understand but so i really don't see any reason to merge them. --NackteElfe 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the Sfakia article needs to be split from the Hora Sfakion element to be two articles. I think that is a separate issue though. Martín (saying/doing) 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerousia

Is usually translated "Council of Elders." --Jpbrenna 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Greek terms & personal names

Any Greek term which is foreign to English and not highly productive (widely used) should be italicized -- but not placed repeatedly in quotes; thus, archontopoulon not "archontopoulon." Speaking of that, the term is Byzantine and probably would have been pronounced as it is in Modern Greek: arhondopoulon. The problem there is that you are getting into a non-standard English spelling which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia: better to write it as archontopoulon, which shows its relationship to archon and archontas, and to put in a footnote on correct Byzantine-Modern pronunciation.

Common nouns should not be capitalized in English: it is archontopoulon, not Archontopoulon. When speaking in general of the archontopoula, do not capitalize. The only exception would the twelve archontopoula being spoken of as one collective person in a formal context, which makes the noun proper: Chrysobull of the Emperor Alexios to the Twelve Archontopoula. (Just think of English translations of the Bible: "Jesus spoke to his disciples..." but "Jesus then summoned the Twelve...").

Personal names are tricky. There is currently a dispute over whether to use Latin-derived surnames for Byzantine personalities or an approximation of the original Greek. Since the consensus seems to be leaning in the direction of the latter, we should probably go with that. First names are more problematic: names like Ioannis which have a common English form should be translated, less common ones like Spyridon should be left alone. When in doubt check a dictionary or encyclopedia of Byzantine history to see the form currently used by scholars.

English usually transliterates the final "-n" in Greek neuters. I know that it's not pronounced in Modern Greek nor used in the official Greek government transliteration system, but that system was adopted relatively recently and it is the usuall practice in English to preserve the written "n" for ancient and Byzantine names. Classicists will know that even the ancient "-on", like Latin "-um" was highly nasalized and did not sound like the modern English pronunciation; in fact, it is even sometimes transliterated oⁿ to show this difference. That is not standard practice however, and one just has to accept that the English-speaking hoi polloi/i polli will pronounce the name of Saint Nikon just like that of the Japanese camera manufacturer.

--Jpbrenna 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)