Talk:Barbarian/RfC on usage

message: This RfC is on the usage of the term Barbarian at wikipedia.
I argue that the usage of the term "barbarian" is inherently POV, is inherently imprecise because it is too vague and broad a term and  unless being used in a direct quote, is inappropriate at wikipedia in most instances. This is concerning the broader contextual meaning of the term and not just for the Roman's usage of it. 
User Stbalbach takes the position that the term barbarian is a neutral and appropriate term to be used when identifying any "non-Roman", as can be seen in protracted discussion at Talk:Decline of the Roman Empire and his recent addition of the section  Modern Academia at the Barbarian article.
 
Please read the relevant policies on this matter:
Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia Naming Conventions. 
Based on these policies:
#Barbarian is not the term these groups self-identified as.
#Barbarian is an outdated and imprecise term - it is vague, overly broad and encourages sloppy scholarship.
#Barbarian is not specific terminology. The most specific terminology available is the appropriate usage. 
#Barbarian cannot be assumed to be an all-inclusive and accurate term when describing all "non-Romans".
#Barbarian is inherently unneutral. It is considered pejorative and has negative associations - regardless of common usage.
#Barbarian can be used in a direct quote, with the original text, even if the author does not adhere to these guidelines.
Up until fairly recent times, it was quite normal - even in academia and science - to refer to non-anglo cultures and racial groups as simply "non-white" rather than whatever their respective self-identifier was. Referring to any "outside" group based on the blanket biases and opinions of another group which is perceived as morally and culturally superior is inherently POV. This archaic usage can be seen in instances in referring to all non-jews (or non-christians) as "gentiles", or more relevant in this instance, the archaic practice of referring to native-americans simply with the historical usage of "savages".
This has nothing to do with falling back on the fallacious Appeal to tradition. A conclusion should be able to be drawn solely based on empirical common sense that referring to "outside" groups with a pejorative is inherently POV. - WeniWidiWiki 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The term Barbarian is appropriate in some articles on Wikipedia dealing with Late Antiquity because it is the commonly accepted terminology used by Medieval scholars. 
*All the available modern mainstream sources about the Middle Ages use the term Barbarian within proper historical context. This includes:
:*Encyclopedia Britannica on Barbarian. plus all other general purpose Encyclopedias. I know of no Encyclopedia that avoids the term Barbarian or use it in quotes. 
:*Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the largest, most modern, and most respected encyclopedia about the Middle Ages in the English language, has an article entitled "Barbarians, the Invasions" and uses the term barbarian throughout its 13 volumes.
:*The most important and top scholars of Late Antiquity are: Peter Heather, Peter Brown, Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart -- all of whom use the term Barbarian not only in texts, but in the titles of books, including those published as recently as December 2006. These scholars work at some of the worlds top universities and are obviously peer reviewed per WP:RS.
:*This is just a sample but shows mainstream use in reliable sources per WP:RS. 
* The above RfC has provided no source to support its position. It is a logical fallacy to take the term out its proper academic context.
*Sometimes terms do go out of style, if that is the case, it should be no trouble providing a source saying so. For example, this article from Encyclopedia Britannica says the term Dark Ages "is now rarely used by historians". Is there any source anywhere that says Barbarian "is rarely used by historians"?
*Regarding the "Appeal to tradition" argument, according to the rules of Wikipedia (WP:OR) we are supposed to use mainstream academic sources ie. tradition. WP:OR is not an "appeal to tradition", but how Wikipedia is designed. We report on what others say and do.
*As for it being a pejorative, historians don't use it as a pejorative, it is used to avoid an anachronism, which is standard historical practice, many historically pejorative terms are used that way. For example "Renaissance" implies a "rebirth" from a "dark age" which implies a negative view of the kingdoms of the early middle ages (related to the complaint about the term barbarian). The term "Renaissance" was a pejorative created by Italian humanists in the 15th C who wanted to see Ancient Rome rise again, but historians use "Renaissance" today in a neutral manner without implying they wish to restore ancient Rome (!). In the same way historians use Barbarian in a neutral manner within proper historical context.
*Regarding this: Barbarian is not the term these groups self-identified as. - Most of the terms for these tribes were assigned to them by the Romans. Germans, for example, did not call themselves German until after Late Antiquity was over - German is a Roman term. 
-- Stbalbach 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stbalbach

message: This discussion may have run its course, but I thought it important to respond to suggestions that greater "precision" would be brought by using specific "tribal" names rather than the covering term "barbarian".  There seems to be general consensus that "barbarian" is POV: the Greeks used it pejoratively to describe hairy people who didn't understand city life; the Romans used it to describe, well, non-Roman people (amusingly, including some Greek-speakers); medieval Christian writers (Roman writers' former barbari) used it to describe non-Christians who rode horses well (or sailed ships well), shot arrows (or wielded battle axes), and tended to take their stuff and burn their villages.  Fair enough.  It should be realized, however, that terms like "Gothi", "Vandali", and the rest are just as POV: they are products, as Herwig Wolfram, Walter Goffart, and many others have pointed out in many contexts, of the Roman ethnographic imagination, which sought to reduce the mess of societies and peoples outside its limes into sensible, classical categories of "peoples" (Gk. ethnoi) or "nations" (nationes).  The perfect example of this is "the Franks", a group designation applied by the Romans, on the basis of a N. Germanic term for free men, to what Patrick Geary has described memorably as a "tribal swarm" living in the region of the modern-day Low Countries.  That Franci came to describe an ethnic and political entity was a product of self-identification and political hegemony exercised by strongmen from the group like Chlothar, who accepted Roman military titles, allowed themselves to be crowned as "kings" over their rivals (and proceeded to crush them militarily), and adopted the religion of their Roman counterparts (Christianity).
The point, in short, is that "Goths", "Franks", and the like are no less POV than "barbarian", albeit less disparaging; the groups that they describe were not ethnically-distinct entities, but products of foreign categorization followed by indigenous processes of self-reidentification.   At the same time, like "barbarian", these terms are used by mainstream medieval historians, albeit advisedly and cautiously.  The latter two adverbs, perhaps, should be our callwords when deciding how to describe these people, their relationships with Rome and late-antique society, and their self-conceptions. SGilsdorf 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tribal" designations