Wikipedia

Talk:Evangelos Zappas#rfc 3E8F3D6

Good articleEvangelos Zappas has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2016Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 19, 2021, and August 23, 2023.
Current status: Good article

RfC

[edit]

Should the lead of this article refer to Zappas exclusively as an ethnic Greek? Super Ψ Dro 10:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason there has to be a RfC over such a petty dispute. Currently, the article includes seven sources saying that Zappas may have been of Aromanian ethnicity. However, some users have insisted on keeping a link in the lead to the ethnic Greeks page for referring to Zappas. This is POV considering that the first subsection of the article should make it very clear that his ethnicity is disputed. It is also non-standard practice, I've just clicked on "random page" and gotten five biographies: Usha Uthup, Roger Clinch, Adam Simac, Juan Padilla (second baseman) and Martín Caballero. As you can see, none of these articles have a link to the article on the subject's ethnicity on the opening line. Not sure why should this article be an exception.

In my opinion, the link should be deleted. I am not asking for the word "Greek" to be removed, only the link. Zappas did have Greek national consciousness and was a citizen of the Greek state that appeared later during his lifetime. Super Ψ Dro 10:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for removing the link, doesn't seem standard as per GAs like Farhan Akhtar and Jennifer Connelly Clarysandy (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources refer to him as an ethnic Greek and numerous sources refer to him as an ethnic Aromanian. Why do they not matter? Super Ψ Dro 20:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because he identified as Greek, and that's what matters. Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that. What I am disputing is if that justifies ignoring seven reliable sources contradicting the claim that he was a Greek. Super Ψ Dro 00:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of wiki-link. Zappas has been described as an ethnic Aromanian by multiple reliable sources, having a link to the ethnic Greeks in the lead of his article is simply not acceptable and goes against WP:NPOV. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Should the lead of this article refer to Zappas exclusively as an ethnic Greek? It appears you are wrong since Greek refers to his nationality, Zappas had Greek citizenship. I can't understand why you are mixing up ethnicity. The claim is wrong. What's most important is that bibliography agrees that Zappas was a Greek entrepreneur. His ethnicity is described in the relevant section of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Greeks that is linked in the opening sentence of the article is about ethnicity. It includes Greeks in Greece, Cyprus, and also people with Greek blood in countries like the USA, Germany, etc.. Meanwhile, the language section at the infobox includes only Greek as a spoken language, not Aromanian, Albanian, Slavic Macedonian and other minority languages in Greece. The linked article is about ethnicity so the discussion is about ethnicity. Zappas did have Greek citizenship and I don't dispute that. But note that several of the five biographies I linked above are from countries that are not nation states, such as Canada or India, and therefore their demonym at the opening sentence refers to nationality and not possibly to ethnicity. And it is not linked. Why make an exception here? Super Ψ Dro 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of link, Zappas ethnic origin is a matter of dispute. The link should lead to Greek instead.
Alltan (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem doesn't lie in the link, but in the article Greeks itself. It discusses Greeks as an ethnic group and/or nation in a way which excludes many people who are Greeks today. This is unfortunately something which the editors who prefer its current state do not fully grasp for what it is - a fundamental flaw. Zappas may have genuinely considered himself Greek in the modern, post-Byzantine Romios sense and this is how most people who call themselves Greeks today acquired such an identity, hence the link should be there but he definitely didn't believe that he was a descendant of ancient Mycenaeans - something which isn't true for many people who call themselves Greeks and which - even as a belief - played no role at all in them calling themselves Greeks. Hence the problem lies in the article, not in the link. In my opinion, another solution would be to change the target article to Greece instead Greeks, hence emphasize his participation in the nation-building of modern Greece and maybe call him Greek and Romanian (target article: Romania) to link it with his participation in the nation-building of Romania. In any case, I think that the term Greek should link to something.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Greece is absurd and a non-starter. Are you going to go around and link every Greek person to Greece instead of Greeks? Should we also link every Albanian from what is now Albania to Albania instead of Albanians? Obvious nonsense. he definitely didn't believe that he was a descendant of ancient Mycenaeans - I didn't think it was possible to create so extreme a straw man, but there you go. Khirurg (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to Greece was an initial proposal in the discussions previous to this RfC. However there were two different Greek states during his lifetime, the First Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Greece. He was also not born in either. Also, I think it's easier to remove an unorthodox change from a biography article that breaks the common practice than to expand the scope of a whole ethnicity article and set it apart from the rest of pages of the same topic. Super Ψ Dro 10:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of link per MOS:ETHNICITY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of link Zappas was one of many people with fluid identities at that time's Ottoman Balkans. While he ofc was primarily a Greek, his Greekness could be different from today's ethnicity concept. The article already says that he took multiple identities (Albania as the place of birth, Greece as ethnic origin and Romania as the place he made his adopted country). Furthermore, Marinov 2013 says that "For some nineteenth-century Orthodox intellectuals, it is difficult to say to what extent they were Greek, and to what extent Albanian—not to mention the case of the philanthropist Evangelis Zappas (1800–1865), who is also claimed by Romania". Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of link per nom.Çerçok (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem appears to lie in conflating two attributes, (ethnicity and nationality) but failing to make clear in text and links how one is using the term at any point. Clearly, if in the opening sentence 'Greek' refers to ethnicity, then his ethnicity is unclear and/or disputed and should not be linked to as if it were clearly and wholly 'Greek'. If the word refers to nationality and/or self-described identity, then the text fails to make that clear and the link does not go to the state he was a citizen of/chose to give his loyalty to. The average Eng WP reader is accustomed to a person's nationality being in the opening sentence as a primary defining feature, their ethnicity being later or absent commonly. I appreciate that isn't always possible in a historical and/or Balkan/Ottoman context, but many readers are going to be misled or confused if the text, the links and the justifications don't align. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit link. The subject has been described both Greek and Aromanian in reliable sources. The current text "was a Greek patriot" doesn't refer to ethnicity. Linking to Greeks would indicate that Zappas was ethnic Greek, which would violate NPOV. Zappas's ethnicity is not relevant to their notability, and hence should be omitted per MOS:ETHNICITY. (Summoned by bot) Politrukki (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Where on page 180 of The New Albanian Migration does Gilles de Rapper say that "On his mother’s side, [Zappas] descended from the Albanian noble Meksi family, known for their Albanian patriotic figures"? On page 180, de Rapper says:

  • "On the part of 'ethnographic Lunxhëri', the extension beyond the 'ethnic border' has the advantage of bringing into Lunxhëri the historically and architecturally valuable villages of Labovë e Kryqit (with its twelfth-century Byzantine church) and Labovë e Zhapës (home of the successful nineteenth-century kurbetlli Vangjel Zhapa and of several patriots from the Meksi family)."

Can anyone explain what's going on? Otherwise, why put words in de Rapper's mouth?

And is Dr. Fedhon Meksi a qualified historian? On his webpage, Dr. Meksi says that he "specialized in cardiology and hemodynamics" ("specializua për kardiologji dhe hemodinamikë"). What does a medical specialist know about history that historians don't?

Lastly, can someone clarify which Meksi family is being referred to? Because the Dictionary of Greek says that there's a Meksis family of Greek revolutionaries from Epirus. Make it make sense. 100.1.27.205 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same Albanian clan: Meksi family. There is no "Meksis" family of Greek revolutionaries from Epirus, only a certain Meksi who migrated to Greece in the 18th century: Hatzigiannis Mexis.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? Does Gilles de Rapper say what the page says de Rapper is saying? It doesn't look like it. And is Dr. Fedhon Meksi a qualified historian? He doesn't appear to be. And why does your answer sidestep the first two questions I asked? What does Hatzigiannis Mexis have to do with Zappas? If nothing, then why bring up Hatzigiannis in the first place? Lastly, why does your answer ignore the Dictionary of Greek, which appears to be a reliable source? I'm sure there're others who can help answer my questions. 100.1.27.205 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct about Fedhon Meksi. Definitely not a source that meets wikipedia's criteria for reliable sourcing. Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to IP) There is a single Meksi family/clan, Hatziyiannis Mexis came from this family. This is the family of "patriots" Gilles de Rapper refers to and it includes historical figures like Vangjel Meksi and Apostol Meksi. As such, the Dictionary of Greek is tertiary source of very low quality because it directly contradicts the actual biographies of the figures it refers to and a large body of primary and secondary bibliography about them. There many such sources as the one you cited which are produced in Balkan contexts. All of them call various figures Albanian/Greek/Serb/Vlach without any reference to the biographies of the actual figures. If you consider Vangjel or Apostol Meksi to be "Greek revolutionaries from Epirus", then you should read the large body of primary and secondary bibliography about these figures in order to verify yourself if this opinion corresponds to their biographies.
Did you read the main question? It reads: "Where on page 180 of The New Albanian Migration does Gilles de Rapper say that 'On his mother’s side, [Zappas] descended from the Albanian noble Meksi family, known for their Albanian patriotic figures'?" The question is on the subject of incongruity that your answer doesn't address. Even if you're right about the Dictionary of Greek, your answer also doesn't address the ancillary question that reads: "What does Hatzigiannnis Mexis have to do with Zappas?" 2600:4040:AE09:8200:3909:9C78:1B6D:B5D5 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Khirurg) Fedhon Meksi was the dean of faculty of the school of medicine in the University of Tirana and in his later years he transitioned to writing about the history of medicine. One work he wrote was about his home region Labova and it is used in the article as a citation about Sotira Meksi. This part is uncontroversial and contradicted by no reliable sources. In other words, it is common knowledge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the main questions? They read: "And is Dr. Fedhon Meksi a qualified historian? [...] What does a medical specialist know about history that historians don't?" That the doctor, as you say, "wrote [...] about his home region Labova" doesn't verify anything about Zappas' mother, Sotira, specifically. Was the doctor's book peer-reviewed by experts on Zappas? What makes him qualified to write about Sotira? If the doctor is so reputable, then why isn't he cited as an authority by historians of the modern Olympics? Historians of the ISOH (International Society of Olympic Historians) mention nothing of Zappas' mother coming from the Meksi(s) family and/or Doda clan evident in a peer-reviewed article by Karl Lennartz, a well-known German historian of sports. And the same ISOH, I think, would find problematic the claim that "[Zappas'] paternal origins remain uncertain". As for common knowledge, it's insufficient for historians and is an appeal that doesn't mesh well with your earlier pivot to quality and actual biographies. 2600:4040:AE09:8200:3909:9C78:1B6D:B5D5 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also verify Plainer Zsuzsa's (not Catalina Vatasescu's) Albanezii din România and Nathalie Clayer's Aux origines du nationalisme albanais? Zsuzsa specializes in philology and cultural anthropology, not history. Zsuzsa's publisher, The Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, is an organ of the Romanian national government and not a university press. Clayer's research interests are many but the locus is on Islam (i.e., "the history of Muslim mystical brotherhoods in the Balkans and, more generally, in the Ottoman Empire"). I don't see how either book adds any historical value to Zappas. By comparison, Karl Lennartz and the ISOH are much higher both in reputability and historical reliability. Should a third party conduct a review? If so, then my suggestion is to supplant some iffy citations (#6, #13–26) with Lennartz. That way, there's less room for confusion and error. 2600:4040:AE09:8200:A8A8:BA19:5F41:AE53 (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]