Talk:Roman

message: 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)
thread_title:  eg. Roman de Fauvel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should there be a "Roman" portal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman descent from the Hellenes 

message: Trying a new format. Alexander 007 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Though the ==See also== section is useful we are breaking the rules a bit: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also" section. If people want the section to stay, it will stay, if not, it will go. I think the format I chose is good for the Wikipedian's navigation, as long as we are keeping the section. Alexander 007 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If people begin to grumble about the ==See also== section, we can start a new article perhaps, "List of terms derived from Latin Roma" or something, and we can simply link that one article as a ==See also==. Alexander 007 09:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improvements for Byzantine/Ottoman references 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war w/ Miskin? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Roman nose?

message: 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)
thread_title: Organization

message: We need to add Ronan gods 66.243.215.152 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can quickly read about what belongs on pages like this at WP:DDD. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman gods