Talk:Roman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Filter

FYI: Some School districts use a Smart filter to Block out The Roman forum Page, Crutial to the Roman city --Jack Zhang 20:24, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

eg. Roman de Fauvel

What about 'roman' meaning french medieval literature? Ola k ase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.181.124 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

Some possible issues:

It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest. --LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman descent from the Hellenes

Plutarch. Roman causes

Ianos ,an Ellin from Peraivia was the first colonist in Rome , α progenitor teacher & civilizer of the Romans. The Romans honored him as a God with many temples and also gave his name to the first month of the year ,January (Ianouarios in Hellenic).

Virgil .Aeniad tome 8 ,50-55

His oris arcades ,genus profectorum , Qui regem euandrum comites qui signa secuti Delegere locum et posuere in montibus urbem Pallantis poavi de nomine pallanteum .

On these shores Arcadians a line led by Pallantas and as they were followers of Evandros followed his banners chose an area and found the city of Pallantio from Evander’s grandfather Pallanta.

Later at 138-161 ad the roman emperor Antoninos the respectful out of gratitude to the Pallantian colonizer gave honor to the pallantians with privileges making Pallantio (in Arcadia) from komi(large village) to poli(city). He also rid the inhabitants from any taxes and awarded them their freedom. (Pausanias. 4 XLIII, 1)

Julian hidalgos (emperor) in his work “For the king helios to Soloustion” 153 a. among his other praises to the Hellenes he writes “ besides the Romans not only belong in the genus (line) of the Hellenes but their sacred institutions (and those of justice) and their religious beliefs are from the beginning to the end Hellenic “. Also in his work “Symposium or lilies” 324 a he writes “although I know that you too Romans descent from the Hellenes”.

Pausanias Arcadika 3,5

Oinotros a mythic heroe younger son of Arcados king Lycaonos .According to tradition he was the first Hellene organizer of a colony. With his brother Italon (from where the term Italians & Italy come from) and Peuketion lead Arcadians and colonized the shores of lower italy .The ancient name he gave the land was Oinotria and later took the name italy from his brother Italon .

Note that Lykaon was a contemporary of Kekrops that lived a generation before the Deukalion flood .Though the above part is an ancient myth even in antiquity it shows the depth of time that Italy was colonized by the Arcadian Hellenes.

Eusevios (fragm. Chronicles A’ CI CIH , tome 20 , pg 170) « The first Hellenes were the Arcadians and having filled the Ionian gulf colonized Italy led by Oinotros of Lycaon, fifth from Azeiou and Foroneus. After along time another Hellenic fleet led by Pallantios came to these villages in Italy from arcadia and Euandros led these colonies.”

Justinian (Taktika leontos chapter 10) “The nation of Lycaon is most related to the Romans … Lycaon came from Arcadia in hellas and when he came named this land Lycaonian”\

Thus we can discover the names given to Italy had the following order = LYCAONIA – OINOTRIA – ITALIA . ……………………………. Also not that the first Roman historians wrote in Greek and not in Latin Namely: Quintus fabius pictor Lucius Cincius Alimentus Gaius Acilius Aulus Postumius Albinus

According to Cicero one of the first Romans who wrote in Latin prose was the Sabine Claudius, Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. He delivered a speech in Latin to the Senate against making peace with Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus.

The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).

The name "Rome" in Greek means "power," "force," "fighting army" and "speed tactics."

The name "Rome" derives from two the Greek verbs: 1) roomai which means "to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors. "

The name "Rome" also derives from of the Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which means "to strengthen, make strong and mighty" and "to put forth strength, have strength or might.

The closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning "to flow, run, to hasten."

Of all the uses of Latin verbs both active and passive there is none that even comes close to meaning "rome."

Romans, Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) would be their common name which dictionaries translate as citizen. But the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greek, polites, i.e. civitas. But the names quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek name kouros-kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, "young men, esp. young warriors," Iliad 19. 193, 248. So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first "warriors" and later "citizens."

Because all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came to Italy by sea from Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea faring peoples. It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they shouted the Greek word Thalassios, sailor, at the groom and not the Latin name marinos.

The rhetorician Quintilian (c. AD 35-95) regards the "Aeolic" Greek dialect as the closest to Latin

The Greek historian of "Roman Antiquities," Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 or 55 BC-c. 21 AD). He writes the following: "The language spoken by the Romans is neither utterly foreign (βάρβαρον) nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of both, the greater part of which is "Aeolic"; and the only disadvantage they have experienced from their intermingling with these various nations is that they do not pronounce all their sounds correctly. But all other indications of a Greek origin they preserve beyond any other colonists. " Dionysius summarizes the reports of the Greek origin of the Romans by the Romans themselves as follows: “But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato (who compiled with the greatest care the ‘origins’ of the Italian cities) Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say that they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and that they migrated many generations before the Trojan war.”

Give me a break!Xenovatis (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

Keithlaw: although I agree with your goal of reducing the clutter on this page, I think your recent edit went too far. The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, called itself "Roman" for most of its history, and was known as "Roman" to most people east of the line that separated the Catholic from the Orthodox sphere. The Epistle to the Romans is frequently referred to as "Romans" in Biblical commentary. I could go on, but I think you get the point. I think you should take your own advice and discuss these points on the Talk page before making radical changes. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were hardly radical, as I followed the advice on the Manual of Style by doing things like removing redlinks (which I see you re-inserted), as well as removing links with tenuous connections. Before editing this page, I went through 30-40 pages that linked directly to Roman or Romans, and found that the links only referred to three topics: Ancient Rome (by far the most), Roman Empire), and Roman mythology (maybe two links). None of these other subjects came up at all. Dab pages are not meant to be comprehensive lists of everything that the page name might refer to, but instead should be limited the handful of pages that the reader might actually be looking for, so that the ultimate dab page is kept concise and easier to navigate. If you want to add one or two links back, that's fine, but the complete revert was unwarranted. I'm restoring my version with the addition of the two links you suggested I add back. As for discussing on the talk page, the article was tagged for cleanup. That's more than sufficient cause to make changes to the page. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might also make sense to split Romans from Roman, since a user who types in "roman" is extremely unlikely to be looking for the jpop or Dr. Who links, but a user who types in "romans" might, although even that strikes me as very unlikely. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of disambiguation of Roman links, and although you are right that most of them relate to the three topics you listed, there have certainly been others (including at least one link to Roman, Bulgaria which you want to delete). The fact that you didn't find more subjects referenced may reflect the fact that I've been busy fixing links so that not many articles point directly to Roman or Romans any more.

As for the red links, what the MOS actually says is "Redlinks (links to articles not yet written) may be included only if you are confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." I think that cities and towns definitely fall into the category of subjects on which encyclopedia articles could be written.

Finally, although I agree that Jpop and Dr. Who are pretty far afield, they do have "Romans" in the title and need to be listed here. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that articles on those towns *could* be written - but will they be written any time soon? Unlikely. If it was one redlink, that wouldn't be such a big deal. But on a page with a clutter problem - one point on which I think we agree - I believe it's better to omit redlinks entirely.

I had already restored the jpop and Dr. Who links, because their page titles make them impossible to find if they're not on the dab page. I should have realized that last night.

To your first point, first of all, good work on the disambiguation. Your /DPL list is going to be a useful tool for me. Regarding links to Roman, I'm not sure what other evidence we can use to determine what should and should not be in this article. The lack of links to other Roman-* subjects is compelling to me, obviously, since it was a major basis for my cleanup. I'm open to suggestions, but I'd like to see something tangible in support of adding back other links. Otherwise there's no end to how many Roman-* links could be added. Do we need Roman Holiday? Roman candle? Roman fleuve and Roman à clef? I sure hope not. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of praise to both of you for working through this. The page looks good to me at this point. Tedernst | talk 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is looking pretty good now. It's long, but I think that's unavoidable. Good work! — Catherine\^talk 02:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements for Byzantine/Ottoman references

I made a couple of changes that I wanted to explain in case there are questions. Specifically the following are the changes I made.

Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Empire (330/476/629 to 1453), the later Roman Empire during the Middle Ages

The previous version just read a little less clearly IMHO. Also, the date of the "beginning" of the Byzantine period is not well established (I think most modern historians would say that this is a pointless debate since the "Byzantine" and "Roman" Empire are the same thing; the dividing line is really just a matter of opinion). The most commonly used dates are the founding of New Rome/Constantinople (330), the deposition of the last Western Emperor (476), and Heraclius' changing the official language to Greek (629).

Romaioi (Ρωμαίοι) or Romioi (Ρωμαίοι), a self-identification of the Greek-speaking people during and after the Byzantine period (the terms literally meaning "Roman")

Clarified 1) that older and newer version of the name to make more obvious how the etymology of the name from "Romanus," and 2) replaced "Greek" with "Greek-speaking" since although most Eastern Romans came to speak Greek, they were not all originally descended from the ethnic Greeks.

Roman Millet, or Millet of Rûm, the millet of the Eastern Orthodox community in the Ottoman Empire

The Ottomans preserved the identity of the "Romans" after they conquered them through the millet system.

Rûm ("Roman" in Turkish), a region of Turkey strongly identified with the Roman/Byzantine Empire

The Turks thought of the Romans (i.e. the "Byzantines") as an ethnic group and thought of the parts of the Empire they conquered (which by then was a shadow of its former size) as being the homeland of the Romans, hence the name. They, of course, took pride in having incorporated the Roman Empire into theirs and preserved the name. --Mcorazao 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war w/ Miskin?

Miskin, I seem to have offended you on this and some other articles and I'm sorry for doing that. I don't think, though, our having an edit war is productive here. Let me at least comment on a few things.

"Byzantine Empire ... the later Roman Empire during the Middle Ages"

This is more or less what it says in the Byzantine Empire article. I'm curious why you object to my wording but do not change the other author's wording.

"Roman Millet, or Millet of Rûm, the millet of the Eastern Orthodox ("Byzantine") community in the Ottoman Empire"

The Arabic and Turkish word "Rum" does mean "Roman". Having said that, my impression is that in contemporary usage the term is generally used to mean other things (compare to English word "Lesbian"; some might say that this word has nothing to do with a Greek island but such assertions would be "false" even though the word obviously has a different connotation in everyday speech). To cite a few quick places on the web that translate the word in this way:

- http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031955/Ecumenical-Patriarchate-of-Constantinople

- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

- http://www.americansephardifederation.org/sub/events/exhibition-jews_greece_1880-1930.asp

- http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-512656/Rum-millet

- http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/030.htm

Note also that one of the titles of the Sultan was "Kaysar-i-Rum" (Caesar of Rome). And again, if you disagree with that translation you should take it up with the author of the Ottoman Dynasty article.

BTW, on the subject of the "Holy Roman Empire" I am not sure where you get your facts. Again, your assertion of political continuity with the Roman Empire differs from the "Holy Roman Empire" article so you should talk with that author. If you want another resource, look at

- http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1349

What you find is that most scholars (other than the Roman Catholic scholars) tend to avoid directly saying that the Holy Roman Empire was not politically connected to the Roman Empire. But they mostly do state that it was a successor to the Frankish Empire which did not have anything to do with the Roman Empire (other than adopting Catholicism which grew out of the Empire). You should read the "Decline of the Roman Empire" article as it touches on some of the disagreements among scholars as to whether the Western Roman Empire continued or not. The point is, asserting that the continuation is a consensus opinion is certainly not accurate. --Mcorazao 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, regardless of whether you are correct on the substance, most of this material does not belong on Roman because it is a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is not an article; it is simply a list of titles of articles that might be referred to by a common term such as "Roman." Any explanation about the meaning of the terms belongs on the separate articles, not on the disambiguation page. This page should only contain just enough context to allow a user to figure out which one of the linked articles is relevant to his/her search. And it should not contain any terms that may be related to Rome or Romans but wouldn't reasonably be searched for or linked by the specific word "Roman". Therefore, Holy Roman Empire belongs because someone might use the word "Roman" to search for it; but Millet of Rûm and Rumelia don't belong, regardless of their etymology, because someone looking for information about them isn't going to be using the term "Roman" in their search. (And yes, I have rethought this issue since my edit a couple of nights ago and concluded that I made a mistake.) --Russ (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree about the disambiguation and was not implying that most the information above should be included in this article. However,

I disagree that a disambiguation page should be nothing but a list of links. Often it is the case that somebody reaches a disambig page because they are not sure what they are really looking for and/or are not sure what naming convention Wikipedia uses for something. Therefore a brief explanation of each link is appropriate in order to help the reader determine which page he/she really wants without having to read all of them.
As far as what terms would or would not be searched for this is a judgement call. I could argue that the Millet of Rum is much more relevant than a lot of things on this page that would never occur to me to look for. I would argue that unless somebody is proposing an objective standard (which is not a bad idea) for making that decision this deletion was inappropriate bias (i.e. the Roman Millet is an important aspect of history even though perhaps not a lot of English-speakers are familiar with it; an obscure rock band, by contrast, does not rate high on the importance scale).

I would also make the general comment that there are a lot of prejudices and stereotypes that have been common in Western scholarly circles until this century (i.e. prejudices that emphasize the "West" over other cultures). A lot of the prejudices still appear in grade school text books and other common media even though they have been partially or totally discredited by the experts. We should attempt to not perpetuate unsupported stereotypes even in subtle ways (i.e. even if it is a couple of words on a disambig page) if it can be avoided. --Mcorazao 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't edit-warring, I was reverting POV. I didn't know if it was you who made those anon edits. I agree with Russ, most material does not belong on Roman, people have been adding random terms that in some old language have some distant root related to Roman. Dab pages are very specific, you take a word or a term, e.g. "Roman", and you provide all possible definitions of that string. We're not supposed to list everything that reminds us of it, or what in our opinion translates to that term from a different language. This concerns the entries I removed. Concerning the comments you made on 'Rum':

The Islamic encyclopaedia says that it was used for Byzantium and ancient Greece
The Turkish version, which comes from the Arabic, means simply Greek [1]
Turkish and Arabic have different words for 'Roman' (I think Rom)
despite what it translates to, this does _not_ belong to this dab page, it belongs to the dab page of 'Rum' - if one had ever existed

So the word does not mean Roman, it has a distant root from a word which means Roman, and Britannica is obviously referring to that root. But in any case, this is irrelevant to this page. Miskin 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Holy Roman Empire goes, Charlesmagne was officially recognised by the clergy of Rome and the Pope as the legitimate Emperor of the Romans, which was btw a political title and not an ethnonym as you make it sound. Despite what you may choose to think, Byzantium and Rome are _not_ the same thing, nor are they considered so. You claim scholarly consensus this and scholarly consensus that but the only thing I see is unsupported POV allegations. If you think that Byzantines were "Eastern Romans who came to speak Greek", then due all the respect but you your perception of the past falls under historical fantasy. I don't know what criteria you're using to classify medieval Empires and peoples as "Romans", but I know that they are not objective. Please try to avoid making edits based on original thought. Miskin 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways as I said, I didn't have the impression of edit-warring, I had the impression of improving the dab page, for all I know I lastly reverted an anon edit. Mcorazao much of your reasoning and beliefs are simply false, there's no better way to describe it. You say from example that there's a region "Rum" in Turkey. There is no such thing, there used to be a region "Rumelia" in the Ottoman Empire - which is by no means synonymous to Turkey, nor synonymous to Rum. Rum used to refer to the Byzantine Empire, then the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire, and today the ethnic Greeks who live in Turkey. Nothing to do with 'Roman' except a distant root via Arabic. What you perceive as the "Roman Millet" is purely original research. The 'Rum millet' is translated in English as "Greek millet", this is just how it is in mainstream scholarship. Calling it anything else is just wrong. Giving it names that in your opinion are "better", is wrong. That is all. I have nothing against your edits, nor do I receive offence, I'm only trying to make improvents. Miskin 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, I have more than once provided examples to support the fact that my statements are not original thought (if I have made any mistakes that certainly was accidental). In addition I have provided examples that what I have stated is largely consistent with other major articles in Wikipedia. Given that you choose to revert my edits but have no comment about similar statements by other authors in other articles I have to conclude that you have a personal problem with me. Therefore I don't see a way to continue a productive disussion. --Mcorazao 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think in Turkish the Rum province is Erzurum (I believe that translates as "land of Rum" or something like that). My understanding is that modern Turks think of this as one word (in the way that we think of Charlemagne as one word). --Mcorazao 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that all your edits were wrong or original thought. I was referring specifically to your claims on this Talk page and your general misconceptions regarding the Romanity of the Byzantine Empire, which are sometimes reflected in your edits. Judging by what Erzurum says, I don't think that what you say is the case. Erzurum lies on the far east of Turkey whereas Rumelia was in the European part of the Ottoman Empire, notably Northern Greece and eastern Thrace. However, even if it were the case, this would never belong in this dab page. If we are to collect all words of all languages that have origins from the word "Roman" (in their respective languages), we'd be in the middle of making a useless article rather than a dab page. Miskin 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman nose?

Well I thought that 'roman nose' was another name for a hooked nose. But the present link takes you to the article on... the human nose. Should we delete this link or should we redirect it to a 'hook nose' article if at all it exists ? Vijeth 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

I don't really understand this huge discussion on a disambig page, which ought to be real simple. I think what you really want to discuss or augment are the article pages. I therefore suggest you take all this material to the article pages. For the entries on this disambig page, I found them extensive and somewhat disorganized. I therefore organized it according to my concept of prevalent WP DA methods. There is one contestible issue, which I feel I should point out, and that is what gets included under "Roman" disambig. I agree on one thing, we don't want just any title with the word Roman in it. Where to draw the line I cannot say. I have never agreed with my auditors on this topic. I tend to be more generous and liberal and therefore I am not deleting anything from here at the current time.Dave (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman gods

We need to add Ronan gods 66.243.215.152 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can quickly read about what belongs on pages like this at WP:DDD. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]