Talk:Maniots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Maniots has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed February 2, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed April 17, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

	Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Maniots, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as a Mid priority article

Contents 1 Old comments 2 Merger 3 Failed GA 4 Failed "good article" nomination 4.1 Second GA nomination 4.2 Third GA nomination 5 Source problems

[edit] Old comments

Why on earth are Maniots classified as a distinct ethnic group? Rastapopoulos 12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont think they're actually discussed as a separate ethnic group, though some mention of their actually being Greek might be helpful, as this is not so self-evident to non-Greeks as the undoubtedly well-intioned author might think. If no one objects to their being Greek, I will proceed to add something to that effect Druworos 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If Maniots showed no resistance in adopting 'Romiosyni', or Christianity, why did they become Christian in the 9th century? It must be obvious that the reason for such a belated christianisation must be their bitter resistance to an imposed religion, and the mountainous nature of the terrain, which made access relativelly hard. Furthermore, i strongly doubt Homer would mention the cities of Mani and refer to them as such. If no one objects, i will indeed edit this article, at least as far as their willing adoption of Christianity is concerned. Druworos 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC

Well it's wierd because there are churches in Mani that date back to around 3 and 4 AD. Homer's mention of the Maniot towns seem logical.

Maybe it's just me, but Kardamli and Kotronas dont quite sound like Ancient Greek names. However, before I go into this further, I should look it up in the Iliad. What's more, Homer wouldnt have classified those cities as 'Maniot', because the name Mani did not exist in Homeric times. As far as Christianity is concerned, it was not disputed so far that the Maniots did indeed become Christian in the 9th century. This is what the article said when I edited it. The difference is that according to the previous version, the Maniots became Christian willingly in the 9th century. What would be most useful here would be references, to support either that they were willingly or forcibly Christianised in the 9th century, or in fact, as you claim, earlier. Could you provide data on these churches? Or could anyone else, at that, provide some references to make this a more scholarly article? It is certainly in need of improvement Druworos 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont have the time to put up the tag right now, so this is a totally unofficial thing for now, but I was wondering how people would feel about a merge to Mani. Most of the info can be found there too, and it does seem appropriate. Druworos 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Druworos, I think that this page pertaining to the Maniots should remain separate from the page that discusses about the area of Mani. Granted, there is information from both articles that are coincidal and may lead one to think that it would be a good idea to place the information from the Maniots article into the Mani article. However, this may potentially lead to omissions from the Maniots page in order to prevent the extended Mani article from being too long.

In other words, I am against this merger only because the new merged article would force a more condensed version of the history of the Maniots. This page was specifically written to discuss, in detail, the experiences and encounters of the Greeks of the Mani Peninsula. You can condemn me if you want for being "narrow-minded", but it would be wrong to sacrifice essential details about the Maniots just to accomodate a merger with another article that may not have enough room to fit all of the information in the Maniots article. Respond as soon as possible. Over and out. - Deucalionite 4/8/06 10:20 A.M.

Don't forget the other glorious deed of a maniot family : They killed off the first Governor of Greece and former minister of the Russian Empire, because they didn't like him. Couldn't they just continue to kill each other ?

[edit] Merger

I agree with Druworos that most of this article should be merged with Mani Peninsula, as it is about the history of the region and not about a distinct group of people. Moreover, it is filled with anachronisms. The name "Mani" doesn't appear until about the 10th century AD; I believe it was called the Peninsula of Tainaros in ancient times. --Macrakis 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. - At the same time, thanks to Kyriakos for his great efforts to improve this article! Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question. If the article is indeed merged wit Mani Peninsula would all of this article be shift of just of parts? Kyriakos 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's up to whoever does the merger. :-) Of course, the good stuff you added should be preserved. We'd just have to make adjustments wherever material is duplicate with that in the other article, to create a smooth unified structure. And I'm a bit skeptical about the quality of some of the text that was here before you came to work on it. Of course, all the text would still be accessible in the article history and anybody could always go and get some of it back and insert it in the new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking, what if this article is renamed History of Mani and the Mani Peninsula article only has a brief description of the history. For similiar article look at Sparta and Crete, which only have a brief description of the history of the region while the full through history is under the articles History of Sparta and History of Crete. What does everyone think? Kyriakos 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that could work too. Given the fact that this article is now substantially longer than the Mani Peninsula one. Of course, it would leave the other article pretty small. Anyway, History of Mani would be a perfectly decent title for an article. We'd need to change the intro accordingly - which isn't very good at the moment anyway, see your very appropriate "dubious" tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Before any move is made I want to hear the opinion of User:Deucalionite who is a major contributor to the article. I left a message at his talk page and once he has his say I'll assess the situation. Kyriakos 12:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks to Kyriakos for the great work in expanding this article. I'd still say the two articles can be merged now. Everything that is now in this article can just as well stand in an article titled simply Mani Peninsula. Look at it this way: if a reader has read this article here, why would they then want to go and read a second article? Mani Peninsula now contains only one or two paragraphs that are not covered much more fully here.

I therefore propose the following: merge the contents of the other article into this one (because this one now has the more interesting edit history), and then move the resulting article back to Mani Peninsula. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been think about the situation and I have come to my desicion. I think that this article should be renamed History of Mani. However, the Mani Peninsula article's history section is lacking so I suggest if it is possible that we merge certain important aspects of the history into the Mani Peninsua article to improve it. But I don;t think this article should be merge into the Mani Peninsula article because of the fact that if it was merge then we would lose details and a better history. As for the culture section I think that that could be merged into the Mani Peninsula article as can the ethnology section. Over all I don't think that the whole article should be merged with the Mani Peninsula article and that only certain aspects should be merged. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have said in the article's peer-review that this is mostly a History of Mani article and not an article about Maniots. So, the problems that FutPer and Druworos point out are real. What I can propose is the creation of three distinct articles:

• One about Mani Peninsula, containing a history section.
• The History of Mani article based on the current article's historican sections.
• A real Maniots article with ethnological, cultural and linguistic info about Maniots.--Yannismarou 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: For the most part, the article is well-written. However, there are numerous errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling (see, as a random example, the subsection "17th Century"). Also in some places (again see the "17th century" section for an example) the sentences are short and choppy and feel redundant. A thorough copyediting by a couple sets of new eyes will help immensely.

2. Factually accurate?: Article appears accurate in its presentation of the information. Impressive use of references. However, a few statements that need references are not sourced. The first example I see is in the Intro "the Maniots were also known to have conducted acts of piracy". "Known" by whom? There must be a reference.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough. Impressive.

4. Neutral point of view?: I didn't pick up on any POV.

5. Article stability? Probably the main reason for failure. Judging by the edit history, the article appears stable, little to no vandalism. However judging by the very recent discussion on the talk page above regarding merges and/or splitting, there are many opinions about the content and its appropriateness to the title. In light of this, I don't consider this article to be stable. Work out what exactly "Maniots" is going to mean in the context of this particular article (e.g. an ethnolinguistic group, an historical population of the peninsula, etc.). Also, reach a consensus on the merge or split issues and act on them.

6. Images?: The use of images is worthy of GA status, but to get to FA, I would suggest subtly varying the sizes and positions of the images (they're a little plain currently).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) It is evident there has been a lot of quality work on this page but the stability and writting issues prevent it from being a GA.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)=

[edit] Second GA nomination

Though it was clearly requested in the previous nomination, the task of switching some of the images to the left side of the page was not fulfilled; I took the time to do so. THe article is overcited, only statements which are questionable or warrant a citation should get one; here it seems every sentence is cited. The article is on hold until the number of citations to the same references are reduced. Also, please remember to put a new {{GAnominee}} at the top of pages listed on WP:GAC. PhoenixTwo 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third GA nomination

Finally. The majority of outstanding issues have been addressed. I'll be back to this article to do a little more cleanup. -Phoenix 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source problems

I am currently writing a book on the Kladas affair, & have written the Kladas entry for Wikipedia. I find a number of problems with the content for that period, and enormous problems with the sources chosen. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is accurate. I really do not have time to rework the references & text on this entry. Venice did not abandon the Mani. Venice did not put a price on Kladas' head -- the vote failed, & innumerable Greeks since Sathas have failed to read correctly the document he published on the vote. And so on & so forth. Nauplion (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)