Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanavsos

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Death phoenix 01:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

vanavsos[edit]

This article is problematic in many superficial ways and in one deep way.

The superficial failings of this article could be corrected. The very name of the article, "vanavsos", is incorrect -- the Greek term has a standard English equivalent, "banausic" (see OED). The meaning given for the term is incorrect -- in fact, inconsistent with the quotes the article itself gives. The transliterations and etymology aren't quite right. The discussion of the sense-development in Greek isn't quite right. There are anachronistic references to modern fields, which could be removed. There is a connection to the constitutions of the Doric states which is not justified in the article, which could be removed. Etc. etc.

If those were the only problems, the solution would be to either edit the article, or to list it in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention.

But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy. At best, this constitutes original research, an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue (arete) and how it is incompatible with banausic occupation.--Macrakis 05:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed resolution: Rename to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece[edit]

In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiLove, I'm ignoring some of the provocative things that have been said, and will try for a constructive, positive, egoless resolution, taking advantage of everyone's contributions.

The core of this article as it currently stands seems to be the political role of the artisan class in ancient greece (the βάναυσοι). That is an encyclopedic subject, there is accepted non-original research on the topic (which it would be nice to cite at some point), and in fact it's not a bad name for it.

That seems like an awfully specialized subject, though, and I'd hope that we could come up with a more general article on the Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with more content on its economic role, its relations with other parts of the population (citizens, metics, slaves, etc.), well-known members (Phidias?, Socrates?), patron gods/demigods (Daedalus?), and all that.

As for the name of the article: In the academic literature on this class, it is referred to either using the English term 'artisan', or with the Greek name in Greek letters, or the Greek name transliterated as 'banausoi' (the plural of 'banausos'). Liddell & Scott (the standard dictionary of Ancient Greek) translates it as 'artisan' (noun); as an adjective, it started out as the adjective 'of the class of handicraftsmen or artisans' and later developed into 'vulgar' etc. (in Modern Greek, it means something like 'uncouth', but that is not really relevant here). Of course, it doesn't have precisely the same denotation or connotations as the English word 'artisan', but there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion by using that term. The printed index of the 1911 Britannica doesn't use the term banausos/banausic, and, to the extent one can trust the scanned version at 1911encyclopedia.org, they don't appear in its text, either (even though it does use the term 'metic'). Hence the recommendation to use the term 'artisan class'. --Macrakis 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A truly inspired suggestion, Macrakis. I do hope that this takes some of the heat out of this debate. --Theo (Talk) 01:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the importance of the term: This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the commercial class from the ethos of the warrior class. It shows the bias of the warrior ethos and established, in the Greek republics, a "psycological distance" between the citizens and the traders. "Artisans" in the Greek language is "texnitai". This word "vanavsos" is to show that they created a term to describe their "bias" against the trader classes and to seperate the warrior ethos from the commercial ethos. This article is very necessary for understanding ancient Greek republicansim!WHEELER 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle is pretty clear on this in Politics 1277a/b: ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες: οὗτοι δ' εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομ' αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρ' ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. That is: “One department [of slave/bondsman] belongs to the handicraftsmen (χερνῆτες), who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands (χειρῶν), a class that includes the mechanic (βάναυσος) artisan (τεχνίτης). Hence in some states manual laborers (δημιουργοὶ) were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy.”

I think it's pretty clear from this passage that "banausos" is not the term of art in political philosophy that you're making it out to be, at least in Aristotle—in fact, he uses the word δημιουργοὶ to refer to the manual workers who were not admitted to office, not βαναυσοι. Your own quotes demonstrate that banausic does not refer to the commercial or agricultural sector, and your quotes about the love of money don't refer to banausoi at all. So where does that leave this article? Is a common Ancient Greek word for a kind of artisan worth a Wikipedia article? That said, as I suggested above, I do think it is worthwhile to have an serious article on the social/economic/cultural position of artisans in Greek society in the Wikipedia. --Macrakis 18:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Nixon said, "Let me make this perfectly clear"---This is not about the "artisan class" it is about the ancient Greek warrior clan using a word to seperate their "*culture*" from the commercial culture. First, It is a word that describes the "prejudice" of the warrior class for the "values" of the commercial class. Moreover, it was a psycological device to train their people to turn away from the commercial fields of endeavor. To label this as the "Artisan class" is to destroy the fundamental meaning that this article is trying to portray.WHEELER 15:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no understanding Classical Greek republicanism without understanding this term! This term is very very very important to Classical Greek republicanism, i.e. Wikinfo:Classical republicanism which was removed from Wikipedia. Which SimonP gets all wrong in Classical republicanism.WHEELER 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a hard concept to grasp. Not only am I a Doric Greek, but I have been trained as a soldier all my life and did six years in the USMC. This is my ethos. Most of you have been brought up in democracy, liberalism, modernism which colors and influences your thought. I have done nothing but read about the Greeks all my life. I have read Werner Jaeger, Kitto, Hamilton, Muller and others. I know ancient Greek culture, though I am not a Greek linguist whatsoever, but I do know Ancient Greek culture and because I have the same lifestyle and was trained as they were, I know from whence they speak. Please don't transport modern ideas and prejudices back into the classical world.WHEELER 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the introductory paragraph to dispel confusion. Please REREAD the article.WHEELER 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the title, the title needs to capture the essence of the material in question. I am all up for a better title, but "Artisan Class in Ancient Greece" is not one of them. This title is misleading because it is not about the "Artisan Class". It deals with virtue and how money is destructive of virtue and the warrior ethos.WHEELER 14:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point on presenting my culture and my ethos is that I see what they see. The Spartans are a strange people, Rousseau commented on this, Paul Cartledge commented on this and many others. Why? Because they are namby-pambies. They are academics, soft and effeminate. How can soft and effeminate, lovers of themselves and lovers of money, understand a warrior culture. They can not. The Spartans are a "strange people". They don't understand and so they can not "correctly" speak of them. What they conjecture is misleading because they miss to catch salient points. Culture is very important. If cultural determinism is important to understanding people's actions And that culture impacts politics, Then Culture also impacts knowledge! What do the proverbs say, "It takes one to know one"; "Unless you have walked in a mile in the moccasins of the other, then you can't understand". Understanding is the key to knowledge. How can academics that have spent their whole life in a classroom have any understanding and/or sympathy (therefore "knowledge") for a warrior culture and ethos in which they despise. Its commonsense.WHEELER 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Macrakis you are turning this into something which is not intended in the article. you state that "this is an essay on the relationship of the Greek concepts of virtue and how it in incompatible with banausic occupation". This article only presents the concept current in Greek philosophy, and the language of the aristocratic classes. This article JUST presents the concept. In the minds of the Spartans, Kretans, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, there was already a concept of incompatiblity. It was a given. Why do you think that in Republic (Plato) that Plato doesn't give any room for the vanavsos. In order to understand Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy and the actions of Thebes and of the Doric Greeks in this regard, this concept is necessary. Your attempt to slight and construe this into original research is an attempt at censorship. I agree that 30% of the [classical definition of republic] was original. But the vanavsos article is not original research at all. You are sliding the facts to get this deleted.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Keep. It is for Classical studies. It is a word used in Aristotelian, Platonic texts and any student needs to know the meaning of the word. I cite sources and it is a good article and not orignal research.WHEELER 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment - whilst I agree with Macrakis, WHEELER raises a good point. The actual article should be on Wikipedia, but there are many flaws with it in its current state. It is original research - see the original research definition, in particular: an article is original research if it "provides new definitions of old terms". In the article, you state (as an example) "Plato and Aristotle teach that the highest thing in man is reason and therefore, the purpose of human perfection lies with the activity of reason; i.e. the 'theoretic' or contemplative life. Trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent this idea.". Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate, I'd be perfectly prepared to refute that claim (I am, of course, assuming that the "therefore" is your own thoughts and ideas, and not Plato's or Aritotle's. If I've misread the passage I apologise, but my point remains - much of the article is original research). Nick04 19:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely my point in this whole debate on the deletion process here at wikipedia. NickO4 is the perfect example. The article states the thought of Aristotle and Plato. nick04 wants to argue with them and place "modern" ideas back into the classical world. "Well, you may think trade, industry and mechanical labour prevent activity of reason, but playing the devil's advocate,. This article is not about MODERN people agreeing with the thought of Aristotle or Plato, it is about presenting their thought AS IS. Only by Understanding HOW they thought can you understand the WHY they said the things they said. This response by this Wikipedian shows the falacy and the damage being done to the Classical world and its studies. This man wants to "reinterpret" Classical thought in the light of Modern Thought!!! This is not right!!!.WHEELER 19:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete original research. - SimonP 19:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Portions would be appropriate for an ancient-Greek dictionary, and I'd vote to delete them as dictionary definitions; the balance of the article's text is idiosyncratic inference, POV, and original research. The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and removing all such conclusions would leave only a patchwork of quotations holding the article together; as Macrakis says, this is not a widely accepted synthesis, term, or concept. (The main author has in the past made collaborative editing of his submissions next to impossible, so improvements to the lesser problems Macrakis identifies are unlikely in any case.) -- Rbellin|Talk 20:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comment, "The conclusion that "Plato and Aristotle teach" anything at all about "modern fields such as lawyering and journalism" is inappropriate on Wikipedia" is very impertinent. You may not take any teaching from the Classics, but all of Roman Catholic philosophy, theology and ethics comes from Plato and Aristotle. You and your people may not like this information and refuse to read anything classical because they are "DWEM" and you despise classical learning and philosophy doesn't mean that you can delete information based on these grounds and your prejudices. What about the rest of us that have a love of the classical world? What about the Roman Catholic philosophers and students who love to have this information? There are "*other*" people out here that do love this information.WHEELER 17:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read, and please try to understand, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and refrain from making ad hominem arguments based on your (erroneous) suppositions about other contributors' personal beliefs. This is flamebait, not constructive discussion about the article's merits or lack thereof. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you look below, I answer all the charges of it being 'original" research. And I ask you, How can it be "original research" when, the word was taken into the English language as early as 1845? And what do you mean by 'modern'? 1935 is not "modern" enough for you? When does "modernity" start, anew every 20 years. So books in the l960's is ancient and no good?WHEELER 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stone me with a blood-red crow, but I can't see what the problem is. I have removed the "modern fields" phrase (which was a bit dodgy), but the remainder of the article looks like a perfectly valid discussion of an ancient Greek word/concept and its context, amply supported by relevant references. It needs some cleanup, but what article doesn't? Keep. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Original research, and if the original author won't allow others to edit it, it's not likely to change. SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, because the basic topic is valid. The content needs a lot of work to strip out novel interpretations, but if poor content (or difficult contributors) were a basis for deletion, WP would just now be getting up to its 1,000th article. :-) Stan 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. Everything that Macrakis says about it is surely true, yet GeorgeStepanek also has a point. It seems that, if it were moved to the correct title, and the inaccuracies (what's wrong with the tranliteration, though?) and personal research removed, it could be a useful article. And yet, and yet... the only genuine English word that corresponds to the Greek is an adjective — and it seems odd to have an encyclopædia article with an adjective as a title (banausic what?); we do seem to be dealing more with a dictionary article. It's also true that WHEELER has a tendency to fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to what he sees as his articles (though the Arete (excellence) article has seen a softening of that position, so there's hope). In the end, though, I don't see that I can vote otherwise than:
Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- WHEELER has asked me to look at the article again, and there's no doubt that he's put a lot of work into it. I disagree with some of the claims (such as that writers like Aristotle disn't distinguish between artisans and slaves), but that's not the point. Discussion of the concept doubtless has a place somewhere (in a discussion of Aristotle, in a discussion of ancient Greek class-consciousness, etc.), but there's just no reason to think that the Greeks (who, aside from Aristotle, seem not even to have used the noun to refer to people, according to my Liddle & Scott) recognised the concept concerned. I've contacted friends who are Classical scholars, but haven't yet heard back. As soon as I do, I'll report here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KEEP, adjectives, ancient and otherwise, are encyclopedic, and I urge the deciding admin to ignore votes such as the above, which are not based in VfD standards. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

???? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, even though it needs work. The subject seems valid to me; unusual but not insignificant. The intransigence (or otherwise) of the article's originator has no bearing on the validity of the article. Mel Etitis raises an interesting point about adjectives as topics and, although I cannot think of the deadjectival noun form of 'banausic', the solution to that issue is to use the deadjective as the title (what can that be?).--Theo (Talk) 17:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If by 'deadjective' you mean 'noun', then the answer is that there isn't one in English; the word exists only as an adjective. That was rather my point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was being slack and using deadjective as a contraction for deadjectival noun. Your suggestion that there is no such construct does invalidate my titling proposal. In my opinion, it does not make the topic invalid, however. --Theo (Talk) 18:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with 'deadjectival noun'; how do they differ from ordinary nouns? As for having an adjective as the title of an article, I'm not making a grammatical point; rather, I think that encyclopædia articles should be about things, people, places, concepts — in a word, subjects rather than properties. I'd find it equally odd to have an article entitled, say 'Philosophical' rather than 'Philosophy', or 'Humorous' rather than 'Humour'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A deadjectival noun is one derived from an adjective. "Usefulness" is an example. What price banausicness? banausicity? No, I thought not. --Theo (Talk) 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, what I'd call a back-formation. How about 'banausickle'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reserve 'back-formation' for neologisms; long-established back-formations get the spurious gravitas of being 'deadjectival nouns'. [How long before we indent this conversation off the page?] --Theo (Talk) 21:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To Theo, we just start a new line. Look, the word in Greek is a noun not an adjective. It may be an adjective in English, but it is a noun in Greek. One just says "vanavsos" and one means the working class. One can say of the perioci of Lacedæmonia, that they are vanavsos. The vanavsoi don't have political rights. The vanavsoi are in rebellion. The vanavsoi are not literate enough to do politics. It is a noun in Greek texts. WHEELER 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no, it's a noun in modern Greek, we're agreed — it's just that there's no noun in English that's derived from it, only an adjective. I'm a little surprised that you say that it means the working class, though; isn't that a figurative, not a literal use? In modern Greek, I thought that vanavsos meant literally 'crude', 'coarse', 'rough', 'vulgar', even 'obscene'. In ancient Greek, though, it was an adjective, surely; I can't find a mention of it as a noun except in Aristotle, and he seems to be creating a noun for his own purposes. Do you have any other references for it as a noun? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As far as my greek knowledge says me, the transliteration would be banavsos not **vanavsos. --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, the transliteration is fine for modern Greek (and modern Greeks pronounce ancient Greek as if it were modern). The standard English transliteration is 'banausos'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "b" in Greek is pronounced as a "v" sound. If the "B" is used then English speakers would say the term with a "b" sound. I don't think that would sound right. And i would like to add that in understanding freedom and liberty, the Greeks did not consider the vanavsos as participants in a city's political life. Aristotle, and Plato did not include the vanavsoi in the political franchise. This word and concept are important to understanding the Greek mentality.WHEELER 21:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither Plato nor Aristotle were democrats, so I'm not clear what you mean by 'franchise' here — and they were surely included in the franchise in the Athenian democracy at the time (given that the term itself was only used as a noun describing a class of person by Aristotle, so far as I can tell). But that's a discussion that should really take place elsewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, β in Modern Greek is certainly pronounced like English 'v', and it would be completely appropriate to transcribe a Modern Greek word that way. However, the term in question is being cited from classical sources (as I mentioned in the Talk:Vanavsos page). The conventional transliteration of β in the Latin alphabet is 'b' -- we don't even need to worry about what the actual pronunciation was in classical times, just know that this is the standard convention. Surely it doesn't make sense to re-write all Greek words borrowed into English following the Modern Greek pronunciation?: 'violoyia' (not biology), 'taftoloyia' (not tautology), etc. Moreover, there is an existing, established English version of this term: banausic. And what's wrong with saying 'the franchise was not extended to banausics'; anyway, the WikiPedia is not about introducing new terms like 'vanavsos'. --Macrakis 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing two things here: English words with Greek roots, and transliterations of Greek words. 'Biology' is no more a transliteration of the Greek than would be 'viologhia' or 'violoyia'; it's an English word whose etymology is Greek.
What's wrong with the sentence you suggest is that 'banausics' isn't an English word.
In so far as Wikipedia delas with concepts that have only non-English names in non-Roman alphabets or other symbol-systems, then transliteration is necessary, and doesn't constitute the introduction of new words. For example, neither qi nor arete is an English word, but there's no problem with having articles on them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, after having read all the arguments above. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Delete for all the reasons given. Or redirect to artisan. If it is kept then the title should be banausoi (for a class), banausos (if people do not like plurals) or banausic as a real English word. --Henrygb 10:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the time being. Needs much work, though. Could become encyclopedic. Smoddy (t) (e) 19:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and the article is not original research (at least not by my understanding of the policy). The concept is an ancient one, I think the main problem is that WHEELER has covered it in a more academic way than is usual on Wikipedia. The article might need a better introduction, to more clearly place it in its proper context, but other than that I see no real problem that can't be sorted out by a spell on "Pages needing attention". Rje 20:24, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

(changed from keep to Delete, see below WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)). Many of these arguments seem to be about transliteration, and I don't see those as valid arguments to delete. There is some similarity to artisan, but I don't think the concepts are interchangable (from what I've read in this article). I agree with Rje--the article could probably use work, but remains valid content nonetheless. WhiteC 21:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This is why I tried to divert the stuff about transliteration to a separate section below (but too late). That's a side issue. The central point is in Macrakis's initial comments:
  “But there is a more basic problem: it is not about an important, recognized concept. It is taking a common Ancient Greek word which Aristotle uses in its ordinary meaning and elevating it into some sort of technical term in political philosophy.”
  All the research that I've done supports this; the ancient Greeks simply didn't use the term in a way that warrants an article. Aristotle himself didn't use it in the way that the article states. Some of the quotations offered below could be taken to support WHEELER's contentions, but are more naturally read otherwise (references to 'the corrupting influence of the marketplace' just don't naturally refer to the supposed concept of 'vanavsos'). I do agree that some of the material would probably fit somewhere, so WHEELER's undoubted hard work needn't be completely wasted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel. This is not a concept of Aristotle. It was common throughout the ancient Greek cities. Aristotle just gave it a philosophical underpinnings. Sparta and Thebes organized their societies around this concept without ever reading Aristotle or Plato. Plato uses this extensively in The Laws. I have added much content and bibliography of the stuff. Please read.WHEELER 21:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Points taken, Mel. Wheeler, since you asked for my input, I have to say that I am unqualified regarding fine details of ancient history/philosophy (along with the other people you list). I probably wouldn't have looked at this article myself, unless there are links to it from some other philosophical article I was reading. Is there a list of ancient philosophical concepts somewhere in Philosophy:Ancient Greece or something--I guess if the concept were mentioned somewhere like that (before I posted this), I'd want to keep it, but otherwise not. So, I'm changing my vote above. WhiteC 05:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.WHEELER 18:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, see Wikipedia:No original research. Rhobite 18:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep The essence of the article is a concept which many people would want ro research on. HOWEVER, it should not be left as it currently is, especially the article's name should be a recongised English word. The word vanavsos does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, therefore in the eyes of most English speakers it is not an English word and shouldn't be in an English language encyclopaedia. REX 19:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, under whatever title is agreed to on the article's talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. According to WHEELER, "The question is 'Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?'." On Wikipedia, the answer is "Yes, that's our policy." You've been around long enough to know this. You talk about the commercial ethos and the warrior ethos. Well, the Wiki ethos is that of open source. The theory is that, if we let a bunch of people without professional qualifications write and edit and delete pretty much as they please, a good encyclopedia will somehow emerge. I know you disagree with the theory and with the policy. That's certainly your privilege, and you have good company, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica pooh-bahs. As long as you stay here, though, you have to recognize that that's the way it works here. The MediaWiki software is available under the GFDL for anyone who wants to start a similar project but with stricter quality controls. By the way, to save you the trouble of clicking through to my user page, I'll admit right now that I'm not qualified as a classicist. JamesMLane 08:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. And it is very clear to me. This is in a sense "stricter quality control". Yes. But the "quality control" on wikipedia is Marxist and Fabian, Humanist and Modern. You have laid out very clearly to me that "who is in control here". The standards being that people who are ignorant of any subject but with a bias to protect can delete stuff off of Wikipedia. And that is not professional, academic, righteous (justice) or truthful. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will not start another page nor work for Wikipedia (though I will transfer stuff here). I see clearly where this is going. I can do better and stop wasting my time here because surely I am. Thanks Mr. James MLane. You have certainly opened my eyes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia. And that yes, then Wikipedia is run by a cabal.WHEELER 14:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have exposed the "hypocrisy" here. All evil is hypocritical as Cicero has pointed out. "Coherence" and "Consistency" are hallmarks of truth which is missing here at Wikipedia. If this is "Free and Open content" and "Open Source" then why is there a deletion notice on vanavsos and why did the Classical definition of republic get deleted? There is a major flaw in the system. Quite prescient of those who practise "dissimulation". You say one thing but do another and this is the sign of it.WHEELER 15:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments. What is the major flaw in the system (as opposed to the people who run it), apart from the fact that some articles which you like are being deleted? I understand your desire to defend them tooth and nail, but you need to pick your fights and decide which things to compromise on (easy for me to say I know), rather than to make enemies with anyone who disagrees with you. Personally, I think that your articles (the ones I have looked at) are good writing about things which deserve to be included in Wikipedia and do not constitute 'original research', but probably should be parts of a larger article on Ancient Greek society as it impacted philosophy, rather than separate articles. If you are looking for something similar to Wikipedia, which has centralized editing, try h2g2 at [1] Thanks for your contributions. WhiteC 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep But not in its present form. Contains some relavent info for Classical studies. Wikipedia has many articles on individual words, like it, so why not this ancient word? Possible changes: one brief article on the word, and then some of the info can be transfered to another article focussing on social structures of the ancient Hellenistic world. Paradiso 07:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep If this article is deleted i'm going to be really pissed off. Actually, I probably won't notice, but I'll still be pissed in principle. No good reason to delete this excellent content. --Alterego 07:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

More Information[edit]

"Many communities took steps to exclude those engaged in trade and industry from participation in politics; even where the marketplace was allowed to intrude upon political life, the merchant and the craftsmen were generally objects of contempt, ridiculed on the stage, if not banished from respectable society." Republic, Ancient and Modern, Rahe, 1992. pg 44.
"Cicero was by no means the first man to reach this conclusion. Centuries before, Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle had addressed the corrupting influence of the marketplace...". ibid, pg 46.
"The ancients feared commerce not simply because it encourages economic specialization and contributed to a differentiation of interests. They worried that trade would erode the fragile moral consensus of the community...." pg 59.
"The fact that there had to be a law at Athens against heaping insults on those practicing a profession in the agora indicates just how difficult it was to overcome this prejudice." ibid, pg 251.WHEELER 19:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualified to Vote[edit]

SimonP is an anonymous user. What's his qualifications for voting? Anything? There is nothing on his page!
JonathanThunder, another practically anonymous user.
Macrakis, a software engineer. I don't go to the software section and edit there do I?
Von Teighon shows no expertise in either philosophy, Greek philosophy, or classics.
Nick04, what's his expertise? I can't find none on his user page either.
Rbellion is a Marxist and an advocate of the Frankfurt school. Of course, he will vote against this material.
Slimvirgin edits articles like these [Bernard Williams], [Rat Park], [Rihab Rashid Taha], [Jeremiah Duggan], [Steven Emerson], [John Cooley], [Kenneth Bigley] etc. What's his expertise to vote on something classical?

Other than Mel Etits and Stan Shebs who has done extensive editing in the Classical field. I find noone qualified to judge anything in the classical world.WHEELER 19:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir R. W. Livingstone was the President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford. These people claim to be bigger than this scholarly gentleman?WHEELER 19:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir Livingstone writes: In some states these theories were actually applied. Sparta excluded the industrial, commercial and farming class from citizenship. In Thebes no retail trader of artisan was eligible for office till ten years after he had retired from business." This is footnoted as follows: "See the admirable discussions in Newman's edition of the Politics, vol. i, p. 98f., which I have used in what follows."

He continues on pg 113:
"The aim of a journalist may either be to enlarge the circulation of a paper or to give his readers a true and intelligent picture of the world; of a lawyer either to extend his practice or to help justice be done; of a business man either to grow rich or to play his part as a 'nurse' of the community. These alternatives are not exclusive. But where the former predominates, the amount of arete generated will be small, and journalists, lawyers and industrialists will be banausoi rather than men." WHEELER 19:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I ask that all read User:Mirv.WHEELER 20:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualifying votes like what you're doing is not part of the VfD process, except for the determination of sock puppets and the like. Besides, as I read in this discussion, one can glean many errors/problems in this article without having the same purported depth of knowledge on this topic as yourself. Your display of hyper-elitism really won't help your cause. If you can't win on your arguments, then that's that. Move on. It's not the end of the world if the Wikipedia doesn't accept a particular article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 04:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The question is "Should people be voting on something they have not a clue on?". Do Software engineers run the philosophy departments on College Universities? Do Software engineers decide who gets degrees within the philosophy department? No. People in the academic system are judged by their peers. All I am saying, is that the "Vanavsos" Article be judged by people who are classicists! Why should people ignorant of the subject matter be voting about something they have no clue on what they are saying? And what is happening here, is that these people are damaging, through their ignorance, classical studies and knowledge! That's the essence of the problem here! This is commonsense. WHEELER 14:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not allowing a particular article in doesn't damage a subject. It's possibly an omission, and if so, people can look elsewhere for info. And I think contributors should be able to vote on any VfD's they want to vote on. Wikipedia isn't a credentialing service. Hey, that sounds like something to add right after "Wikipedia isn't a link farm" in the FAQs. LOL — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You sound like a true professional. What is really going on is censorship. Wikipedia touts itself as "Free and open Content". And by gathering a group of "Fabian Socialists" and other fellow travellers, we can delete information through the power of democracy and "sanitize" Wikipedia for only articles that fit modernity and marxist views.WHEELER 14:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who ever suggested this was a professional encyclopedia? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for your "marxist" claptrap, there's plenty of articles that would satisfy "the right" in here. Plenty. But it's not as if we can leave out "the left" as well. All viewpoints belong, as long as they have encyclopedic relevance. I really don't understand why you're using up so much time wailing about such minor issues. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the people, and if you can't get the people to recognize a few obtuse concepts, then boo-hoo-hoo. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 21:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Stevie the man please see my response above to Mr. James MLane. Vox populi, vox dei, which you have now turned around to vox populi, vox veritas. Everything revolves around the people which I like to call the "Herd". You are right. Thanks Mr. Stevie the man and Mr. MLane.WHEELER 15:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Qualifiers for "No Original Research[edit]

A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
- "Vanavsos" is the thought of the aristocratic people and philosophers of ancient Greece. It is an established fact.
It introduces original ideas, or
- This article establishes nothing new or original.
It defines new terms, or
- It keeps to the orignal meaning of the word.
It provides new definitions of old terms, or
- No new meanings are advanced.
It purports to refute another idea, or
- does not do this.
It introduces neologisms.
- not applicable.

However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become, a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:

The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

What the real problem is
The real problem is this: " a permanent feature of the public landscape". Because of the loss of classical learning, reading and schooling in the classics, many are ignorant of this fact. This information is strange to the 21st century man but in Victorian England, 1920's America and England, this was a common knowledge. The word entered the English language and was understood to be such. It is in the OED. This meets none of the criterial of Wikipedia:No original research.WHEELER 20:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, moved to Artisan Class in Ancient Greece, with some re-edited material under a subsection "Elite views of the artisan class." No one who has read anything about the failure of Hellenistic science is likely to mistake the gist of this as "original research," no matter how "difficult" a couple of administrators find this particular editor. A discussion that is highly revealing and not Wikipedia at its normal self. --Wetman 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep but under a name or phrase which captures the concept in english, since the current title does not seem to be an english word, just a transliteration into english.--Silverback 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Undecided Am awaiting my orders from the cabal to see what our collective opinion is.AndyL 18:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add votes above the "More information" mark so that they can be counted

Transliteration[edit]

I've started this in order to avoid cluttering up the voting any further. I'm not arguing for the retention of this article (my vote, above, stands), but a number of people have raised and argued about an issue that's of more general importance.

An article on, for example, graves should start with the origins of the term and associated concept (in fact the Wikipedia article is a stub, but the principle holds); nevertheless, the article is given the modern English spelling, not 'græf', and the modern spelling is used when talking about ancient grave mounds, etc. Why then, when we're talking about a word that exists and is used in modern Greek should we use a transliteration alien to the modern pronunciation? It's not even as if such transliterations are accurate representations of how Aristotle or Euripedes, for example, would have pronounced the language. Is it, at least in part, that non-Greek Westerners feel that they own the ancient language and culture, and that modern Greeks are merely its degraded descendants who can be ignored? I'm sure that such an approach is usually unconscious, but I suspect that it's widely prevalent. (There's a G. K. Chesterton essay on this sort of topic, but I don't have the reference to hand.)

If there's an English word derived from the Greek, then of course it should be used in an English-language encyclopædia, but where the word is solely Greek, then surely good practice (not to mention good manners) dictates that the Greek pronunciation be used to transliterate it — not a transliteration of the conjectural (at best) pronunciation of people dead for 2,500 years, but of the pronunciation of the living, breathing users of the language. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, Modern English has borrowed this word from Ancient Greek, not from Modern Greek. Using a transliteration reflecting Modern Greek pronunciation would be like borrowing a word from Latin and using modern Italian pronunciation for it, or borrowing a word from Sanskrit and using modern Hindi pronunciation and transliteration for it. --Angr 14:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But, first, this word doesn't exist in modern English — that's the point (as has been pointed out a number of times above); English has the adjective 'banausic', but no noun, so it hasn't borrowed it from anywahere. Secondly (and less importantly), the relationship between Latin and Italian is very different from that between Ancient and modern Greek, nor is transliteration an issue in the former case (besides, Latin is pronounced in many ways; being brought up a Catholic, I was taught to speak Latin in a much more Italian way than my current colleagues in Classics in Oxford — and you should hear the Latin grace as spoken in Pembroke College, Oxford; I'm told that it's the northern European style, very Italian, much more so than my early training). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this right: we're transliterating an ancient Greek word into English, right? That word currently does not exist in English. Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek. We do not know exectly how people spoke in Ancient Greece. We should use the system used by the greatest number of people, particularly scholars. While some scholars would pronounce Ancient Greek with a level of the modern style coming in, they would not read the one as the other. The normal way of transliterating β into English is as "b". The way to obtain a "v" would be to use the pre-Classical digamma (Ϝ). If we were expecting the French Wikipedia to transliterate a modern English word, we would like them to use a modern system, not Chaucer's pronounciation. Mel's point about his pronounciation (and Pembroke College's) is about a modern dialect of Latin, not of the original language. It would also make most sense to someone who is not au fait with Greek tradition or pronounciation to comprehend. Smoddy (t) (e) 15:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, we're transliterating a Greek word into English; it existed in Ancient Greek, it still exists in modern Greek — it's just Greek
The normal way of transliterating 'β' varies according to context; when dealing with modern Greek, the normal way is to use a 'v'. Modern scholars, especially when writing in more popular contexts, often use old-style transliterations (such as 'Euripedes' rather than 'Evripidis' or even 'Evripithis') when dealing with familiar names and words, and more accurate modern transliterations otherwise.
Transliterating isn't an issue from English to French.
You seem to have missed my point about Latin — and no, it has nothing to do with dialects, modern or otherwise.
Someone who isn't au fait with Greek will hardly be affected by the difference; they'll only have the English transliteration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the article is about the ancient word.
I am currently studying classical Greek. I have recently been to Greece. I do know quite a bit about transliteration. If I could pick you up on one thing: writing in more popular contexts. Are we not trying to make an encyclopedia understandable to the average man-on-the-street? I would also say that the concept is classical, ergo the transliteration should be by normal standards for classical work. If someone said to me, "Who wrote Iphigenia in Aulis" (for example), I would say Euripides, not something along the other lines. I realise that is, to an extent, your point. However, it is highly inconsistent. This encyclopeda should be clearly understandable to someone approaching the concepts for the first time. This inconsistency isn't.
Point conceded. It was the nearest comparison I could draw.
Then, pray, what was your point?

See point 2 re consistency. Modern Greek ࣔ Ancient Greek! Smoddy (t) (e) 17:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no expertise in naming, or in Latin and Greek etymology to English etymology. So I leave this argument up to experts. My only thought is to make the word understandable to illiterate and unclassically trained high school students.WHEELER 17:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is that there isn't an ancient word and a modern word; there's a Greek word. Besides, I'm not talking about this article (which I think, on balance, should be deleted as non-encyclopædic).
The point about popular writing is precisely that; as we're involved in popular writing, we might think of following the lead that I cite. (Also, however it's transliterated, I'd say Evripidis (the 'd' being more of a 'th'), as would most Greeks.)
My Latin comment was a response to yours; you then treated it as a separate point in itself.
The consistency can be found if one treats well-known names to be English borrowings (as in the 'biology' example used at one point above); then borrowed words, being English, are spelt as the English spell them, but transliterations conform to the Greek pronunciation.

Where are you studying Classics, by the way? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, I'm not. I'm studying for my GCSE, but I do read an awful lot (far too much) and consider myself to have something of a flair for understanding languages.

I'm now rather confused as to the points I was making. However, I think: a) article should be deleted, but not enough to vote; b) use the transliteration that makes the most simple sense. I think I shall leave this discussion now. Sorry to have had a bit of a dispute... Oh, and I think Wikipedia should respond to trends, not try to set them. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“I'm studying for my GCSE” — that's good to hear; there's still someone out there doing it. The Classics faculty here has slowly been forced to admit people who have neither Greek nor Latin, because of the shortage of qualified candidates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After considerable thinking... for the Greek word Barbarian we use the English word "b". I am all for changing the title of the article to "banausic" or something similar. WHEELER 18:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that's for an English word with a Greek root; it's not relevant to the question of transliteration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have sitting in front of me the OED and the word is used in English language as an idea from the Greek classical world. So the "idea" was transported to English culture. The word may be dead now but in Victorian England it was real. As for transliteration, we can keep that in the body of the article but for the title of it, maybe we go with banavsos, banausos as with like "Euripedes". The word was used as late as 1957.WHEELER 19:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.