Talk:Douloi

This article should be merged with the article on slavery. There are a lot of errors in it, too, claiming somehow that ancient Greek douloi were not slaves, that they had 'liberal' rights, etc. Of course, the precise status of slaves was not exactly the same between ancient Greece and ancient Rome, let alone between ancient Greece and 19th century Mississippi, but that doesn't change the fact that they were slaves. --Macrakis 17:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was written by User:Iasson, who had unique ideas about voting, democracy, Greeks, and Greek democracy. I don't know the subject matter in detail, but I'm sure you're right. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Makrakis; fancy meeting you here. Septentrionalis 05:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

epidoulesthai

For the record, and anyone else who wanders through, doulos = slave; epidoulesthai = "sell" I see no reason not to blank and convert to a redirect; but I will have to print and read both articles first. Septentrionalis 05:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ask ANY greek native speaking person where is he going every monday, and he is going to asnwer you. "I am going to my douleia". Let me also remind you what Rigas Feraios said: "kalitera mias oras eleutheri zoi, para saranta chronia sklavia kai filaki". He said "sklavia kai filaki" NOT "douleia kai fylaki". Dont you wonder why he used sklavia and not douleia word? You are kindly requested not to translate greek texts erroneously. Thank you.

I am embarrassed by the ignorance of my fellow Greeks. The language of today is not the language of 2000+ years ago. Of course douleia nowadays means work, but 2000+ years ago, doulos clearly meant slavery. The word sklavos wasn't used until Slavs were enslaved. --Macrakis 12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The meaning of the word doulos is not equal to slave meaning. Slave is defined as a person who has not rights at all. Have a look at the rights a doulos had in Athenian democracy (the right of life, the right to have a trial, the right of property, the right of not beeing hit by anyone, the right to change his master) and compare them to the rights of the slaves.

In our national hymn it is said:

"'Αργιε να 'ρθει εκείνη η μέρα,

κι ήταν όλα σιωπηλά, γιατί τα 'σκιαζε η φοβέρα και τα πλάκωνε η σκλαβιά."

It is said "sklavia", NOT "douleia", and this shows again that sklavia and douleia words have not the same meaning.

You might want to consider when the national anthem was written. --Macrakis 14:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As they have already told you, and according to the modern greek language, "slave" is a non free person who has no rights at all, while "doulos" is a non free person who has a few rights. How do you call in english a non free person that has a few rights? Do you have an english word for it? If you want to communicate with accuracy, you have better find a word for that, or alternatively you could try the greek "doulos" word. Please dont revert the "doulos" article again, unless you can point to an english word that can distingush a "slave" ( a person whith no rights at all), a "doulos" ( a person with a few rights) and a "freeman" (a person who is not restricted by anyone exscept by laws decided using majority rule)'. Your name seems greek. Are you a greek? If you are a greek then the words "douleyw" (I am working), "douleia"(work), "douleyths"(worker), "douliko"(servant) should be familair to you.

If your arguments are refering to the ancien greek language, in that case maybe you are right that the word "doulos" includes every non free person. But if you are searching for the accurate equivalent of the "slave" word in the ancien greek language, you have better use the word "ilotes" or "andrapods" instead.

The Modern Greek word δούλος has nothing to do with this article, which is about an Ancient Greek subject. Δουλοί could be bought and sold, their children were born into slavery. Yes, some of them had privileges, but many of them were sent to Lavrion to mine silver. The scholarly consensus has always been that they are slaves, and Wikipedia is not the place for novel theories. --Macrakis 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Noone denies in the article that douloi could be bought and sold. The purpose of the article is to distinguish between people that could be bough-sold and had no rights at all (you can call them slaves although the term is inaccurate, ignorant of history and insulting for the Slaves nationality people) and people that could be bough-sold but had some liberal rights (douloi). The scholarly consensus distinguish douloi from slaves, its not a novel theory, and I wonder what kind of books are you reading. I am also asking you to bring here your sources from ancient texts and shows us that douloi had not rights at all (so you can equate them to "slaves"), otherwise stop vandalising the page.

If you look in the slavery article, you will find that slaves in other societies had some 'rights', too. Babiniotis's dictionary clearly says that 'sklavoi' was a 'new word' for 'douloi'. Finally, accusing others of 'vandalising' when they are clearly editing in good faith is just silly. --Macrakis 06:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In the slavery article is mentioned that the strict definition of a slave is "a person that has no rights at all". I like strict definitions, and I hate people like you trying to blur things. Then the slavery article clearly distinguish between Slavery and Serfdom and points to a separate article for serfs. Serfs are people that cannot be sold away form their land. Serfs are a separate category, so they obviously have a separate article space. The same happens with douloi people. Douloi are not slaves as long as they do have some liberal rights, so they deserve to be mentioned in a separate article. I asked for ancient sources, and you bring babiniotis dictionnary? Babiniotis is also calling people for Thessaloniki city, Bulgarians. He is not considered as a trusted source, here in greece by many people. So please bring the ancien sources, and not innacurate contemporary dictionaries.

Apart from the fact that douloi had rights, and the fact that slaves are defined in the slavery article as persons with no rights, here is another quote from slavery definition that shows that douloi were not slaves. "A slave is someone who cannot leave an owner, master, overseer, controller, or employer without explicit permission, and who will be returned if they stray or escape". Douloi in Athenian Democracy had the right to become suppliants in temples, and in that case their master was forced by law to sell them to another master. Also any free person could denounce a bad master for maltreatment of douloi. It is also notable that in case a master raped a doulos children was sentenced to death. As you can see, a doulos having the right to escape at a temple and change his master, or having the right to ask another free person to denounce his master, contradicts to the slavery definition that says "A slave is someone who cannot leave his owner". I hope you are convinced now, so please revert the douloi article to its original state. Otherwise I am still waiting for you to bring here evidences that douloi meaning in Athenian democracy is identical to the slaves meaning.

A slave is property, as the douloi were - all else follows. The right of supplication is paralled in other slave societies - compare Egyptian anachoresis. I believe the claim about rape is a misunderstanding.Septentrionalis 04:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone is allowed to burn and destroy his property. A master is also allowed to kill his slave, thats why a slave is considered as master's property. But in Athenian Democracy nobody was allowed to kill a doulos, and a trial was required in order to punish him to death. Thats why a doulos was not exactly what we call "property". Serfs are also a "property" like douloi are, but serfs do have a separate article. Why do you believe that the claim about rape is a misunderstanding? And what is this "egyptian" anachoresis? Anachoresis (Αναχώρηση) is a greek word, why egyptians are using a greek word for that? Dont they have their own word to use?

We use the Greek word because the practice ia most often documented in Ptolemaic and Roman texts, in Greek (and because more ancient historians read Greek than Coptic). The prohibition on killing slaves, like that on beating them in the street, was a health and safety measure intended to protect the citizens from the pollution of homicide (compare the custom of msking defendants in murder cases plead from a boat).Septentrionalis 17:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

I won't be able to revert the sock puppet's shenanigans again due to 3RR. This is clearly Iasson trying to start new edit wars to inject his inaccurate material into the Wikipedia again. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am not Iasson. Answer to the arguments, instead of vandalising douloi page and accusing me and the other greeks here of beeing vandals.You are the vandal, and we are trying to explain to you that...

1. Slaves were absent in the times of Athenian Democracy.
2. Slaves meaning is not the same as Douloi meaning, as has been prooved in the article.

I will bring you (and I asking the other greeks here who agree with me to bring) all the ancien text sources we have that are the proof that douloi people had rights and they were not identical to slaves. Please, you and the others, bring your sources from the ancient texts, and shows us that douloi were identical to slaves. If you have no sources then please stop vandalising the page.

This user has now been reported to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I think there's enough evidence for vandalism that I can override 3RR with another revert. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You guys have had your three reverts for this 24hrs. That's Stevietheman, 213.* anons and 146* anons. Any more edits will be reverted and result in an automatic 24hr block. DJ Clayworth 20:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I will of course comply, but it's too bad this clear muckraker's (Iasson's) work is being left here, when the community has decided that a redirect is best. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

What is the three reverts?

You and your sockpuppets, Iasson. We're not stupid. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are crazy! Do you also think I am the Pope too? Anyway I am not going to bother anymore. Do whatever you want, vandal.

Iasson, you know you won't stay away; you never do. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have only reverted once and am ready to revert again as necessary. --Macrakis 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm no expert, but from what the article says, it sure seems to not be the same thing as slavery. It seems to be as distinct as serfdom is. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If you take a look at slavery, you'll find many variants of the practice of slavery. The ancient Greek variants -- and they varied quite a lot from city to city and period to period -- fall within the general notion of slavery. The article also has lots of enormous blunders in it -- like using the Modern Greek meaning of words in Ancient Greek contexts. If you also look at the comments here in the Talk page, you'll find that the (few) people supporting the article have other peculiar positions, e.g. that using the word 'slave' is an insult to Slavic people. Yes, the word does in fact come from the word 'Slav', but in English there is no confusion between the two. --Macrakis 03:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you may think (unfortunately without providing any proof for that) that the article has blunders in it. Is this a reason to delete it ? Dont you think that trying to correct the blunders is a better practice?

If you are a greek, read this text"Τῶν δούλων δ' αὖ καὶ τῶν μετοίκων πλείστη ἐστὶν Ἀθήνησιν ἀκολασία καὶ οὔτε πατάξαι ἔξεστιν αὐτόθι οὔτε ὑπεκστήσεταί σοι ὁ δοῦλος. οὗ δ' ἕνεκέν ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπιχώριον, ἐγὼ φράσω· εἰ νόμος ἦν τὸν δοῦλον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου τύπτεσθαι ἢ τὸν μέτοικον ἢ τὸν ἀπελεύθερον, πολλάκις ἂν οἰηθεὶς εἶναι τὸν Ἀθηναῖον δοῦλον ἐπάταξεν ἄν· ἐσθῆτά τε γὰρ οὐδὲν βέλτιoν ὁ δῆμος αὐτόθι ἢ οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ οἱ μέτοικοι καὶ τὰ εἴδη οὐδὲν βελτίους εἰσίν." and tell me if the meaning of the word "doulos" is similar to the contemporary meaning of "douleyw" or not.

For the rest of you, this is pseudo-Xenophon, Constitution of Athens 1,10 (with a link to English word-for-word translation. It has been discussed elsewher on this talk page.] Septentrionalis 17:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Very nice link! Thanks Septentrionalis. Even the non greek speaking persons can easily understand now the double meaning of the word "doulos", which is correctly preserved by greeks in the contemporary greek language.

One important question for this article: it asserts that Douloi 'are not slaves' in Athens, but it doesn't explain why. In the intro it says they are "workers who are forced to obey the commands of another". That sounds pretty much like a slave to me. The only evidence for saying that they are not slaves is that "they couldn't be put to death without a trial". However in many cultures (e.g. Old Testament Israel) that's true, but it doesn't make the slaves any less slaves. In fact the article states that douloi could be bought and sold. I find it notes that someone who rapes a child Douloi would be punished. Presumably that distinction is made because it isn't punishable to rape an adult douloi, which would certainly add to the contention that they were slaves. In fact reading the article, it looks to me very much as though douloi were slaves; slaves with some rights in some cities, but still slaves.

I repeat once again the words of my fellow greek above. Slaves are persons with no rights at all. Serfs, having a few rights, are not slaves and they have their separate article. The same is for douloi. Either redirect Serfs to Slaves and change Slaves' definition, or keep the douloi article as it is. Capichi?

The English distinction is that serfs cannot be sold (except by selling the estate to which they are bound); slaves can. Douloi could be, and were. The Greeks had serfs - helots and penestae- and had separate words for them. Septentrionalis 17:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If someone can be sold by selling the estate to which he is bound, then the correct thing to say is that this person CAN be sold. I think Greeks had no serfs, douloi (including helots and penestae) could be sold anywhere. Anyway, I still believe that douloi!=serfs!=slaves so I reverted the article again. And I liked what DJ Clayworth said. If a person is forced to work until he has paid off a debt to its state, he is state's slave. And if a state is forced to work until paid off a debt to another state, then the first state is slave to the other, and all the inhabitents of the enslaved state are considered serfs, arent they? Maybe we should mention this case to the slavery article too. :-)

I think if we wish to establish that douloi were not slaves, then we need to answer some questions about them.

• Could douloi choose which master they worked for, or what work they did?

They had the right to become supliants in temples or ask another free person to denounce their bad master, so partially yes.

• Could douloi resign?

no

• Were children of douloi automatically douloi themselves?

yes

• Were Douloi paid?

yes

No. Masters were paid for the work of their slaves, as the Parthenon accounts and Attic New Comedy show. Slaves might get tips, and were by custom allowed to keep them. Septentrionalis 17:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if they were slaves, that doesn't mean they don't deserve their own article, if their form of slavery was distinct enough to differentiate it from other forms. DJ Clayworth 13:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats right. Thats the point. They were somehow slaves, but not exactly slaves. They were something in between.

By the way, inEnglish we do have a word for a person who is owned by another and forced to work for them, but has a few rights. The word is slave. DJ Clayworth 13:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? And how do you call someone who is forced to work for another, but has no rights at all? Slave to the square?

No, we call them slaves too. Not all languages make the same distinctions. In the same way there is no distinction between the person who is forced to work until he has paid off a debt and a person who is 'owned' by their master for life. In English both are slaves. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. So you call a slave someone who may has no rights at all, but also you call a slave someone who may has a few rights. What are those few rights that even if someone has them, he is still considered as slave? And how many rights someone should have, in order to be considered a free person?

The greek definition is different. A slave has not rights at all, a doulos has a few rights but he cannot decide about the rights he has (they are given to him), and finnaly a free person has any right given to him by laws voted by himself and the rest free persons.

And what, O Anonymous Sock-puppet, do you suppose the Attic word for this class with no rights at all to have been? And who belonged to it? Septentrionalis 19:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In the slavery class no rights at all you can put roman slaves, or spartan helots. In the slavery douloi class you can put everybody else including yourself and myself too, as long as, according to Attic dialect), we are not free men. The words are always created for real life usage, so as long as they were no slaves with no rights at all in Athens no such word existed then. But "andrapods" attic word is much much closer to the no rights at all class, and dorian helots is almost identical to it. When greeks lost their freedom they call themselves douloi, that why they still use that word for themselves what they work. And when the real slaves with no rights at all arrived, then in the greek language a distinction has been made between slave and doulos words, and its valid until today. A slave has always visible chains around him, doulos' chains are invisible ones. You may look at the Bible too, when Christians are calling themselves douloi of God, the didnt mean persons with no rights at all in front of God, but rather workers of God with rights not chosen by them but given by God.

Sorry, this will not do: Pausanias (3.20.6) and Strabo and Isocrates (6.27) all speak of the Helots as douloi - and doulos is the normal Greek word for Roman servus. (Discussing theology would be POV - and irrelevant here; but I find the idea that we can make claims of God, as of right, difficult to reconcile with Ephesians 2:8-10.) Attic Greek does not make the distinction claimed - and the proposed text for this article falls with it. Septentrionalis 20:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop translating greek language erroneously. Doulos means a worker having rights not choosen by himself, but by another person, and who is forced to obey to commands. This is not what the slave article says about slaves. Also you ve better refer to sources written by free persons (dated 500-400 BC) , and not written by douloi, like Pausanias was for example. Read again pseudoxenophon, and tell us what is the meaning of "Athineon doulon". Isnt it "Athenian worker"? You ve better translate the rest text too to understand the condition of Athenian douloi, and convince yourself and the others that they were not close what we call today slaves, but rather closer to what we call today "free" persons.

Let me correct a little bit your definition. Doulos means a worker who himself and his chidren can be bought or sold, and who has rights not choosen by himself but by another person, and who is forced to obey to commands. Of course I agree with you that this is not what the slave article says about slave's meaning, thats why douloi deserve a separate article.

After reading the above text, I have come to the conclusion that the redirect is correct, and I will help maintain that redirect. It should follow then that the Slavery article should be required to maintain information on any minor distinctions about the douloi form of slavery. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur, and have added the one quoted in Greek above. Septentrionalis 17:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of us participating in this discussion -- except for some anonymous IPs which are apparently sock puppets -- agree. Let's just be firm about reverting, and also vigilant about keeping this stuff getting into slavery. --Macrakis 17:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary

The Athenian slave code differed from that of Sparta or Rome or South Carolina, as these differed from each other. The place for (accurate) statements to this effect is Slavery (which I see has already been meddled with deceptively). The law cited by pseudo-Xenophon is a poor instance of this: it was unlawful for A to strike B's slave in South Carolina, just as it was unlawful for A to strike B's cattle. I am moderately intrigued as to the origin of the (false and silly) position above - but further discussion does not belong here but under Nationalism #Adverse effects on scholarship. Silence and reversion will imply that I see nothing worth responding to. Septentrionalis 01:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont concur to this summary. I dont think it is a matter of nationalism, but a matter of truth. Lets not counterfeit the ancien texts, lets find more original ancien sources dated 400-500 BC in order to better understand what the ancients meant when they used the word "doulos".

When you find evidence unknown to Sir Moses FinleyFinlay[doubtless confusion with George Finlay] , or even not yet mentioned in this talk page, do post it.Until then, I shall maintain the revert. Septentrionalis 16:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind please present the evidence of this so called Sir Moses Finlay here? Would you? And please, in the ANCIENT language, not in the translated one...I am waiting for you....

I decline to transcribe M.I. Finley: Claasical

slavery and Ancient slavery and modern ideology here. Find, Inter-library loan and read. I continue to await evidence new even to this page.

Then again, since these anonymous posters can construe pseudo-Xenophon in a manner contrary both to Greek and English, giving them a longer text msy not serve any purpose. Septentrionalis 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

'Douloi' and 'doulos' not English words

Even if there were a consensus to keep a separate article for 'douloi' (and there's not), would it even be appropriate to have an article based on a word not recognized as part of the English language in the English Wikipedia? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 07:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

If it became commonly used there might; e.g. jihad. Are douloi and doulos commonly used in English? I get lots of google hits, but none of them seem to be for the Greek word for slave. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My Websters dictionary has "doula" (from modern Greek) which is a woman trained to give nonmedical assistance to a woman during labor. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes...correct. This is just another proof that doula means working-woman and not bonds-woman. Thanks for pointing to it. Lets find more sources about douloi, to understand better what was the meaning of douloi in Ancien Athens and Greece in general. Primarily lets find original ancien sources, dated between 400-500 BC.

No, it just shows that words change meaning over time. By the way, you don't like Babiniotis ISBN 9608619009, so how about the Λεξικό τής κοινής Νεοελληνικής ISBN 9602310855 (usually called the Andriotis dictionary)? Take a look at the definitions, etymologies, and sense-developments of δούλος, σκλάβος, and ανδράποδο. --Macrakis 17:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the question here is what is the meaning of the word doulos in ANCIENT greek. Why you keep bringing to us dictionaries of the modern greek language?

Because they document the history of the words and their meanings. --Macrakis 14:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

And because the *only* case which has made against the redirect is the Demotic meaning of Douleia and its cognates, which meanings arose after the disappearance of classical slavery. Septentrionalis 22:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The contemporary greek language words "doulevo" (I am working), "doulia"(work), "douleftis"(worker), "douliko"(servant), "doula" (housemaid) are just a hint of the meaning of the ancient word "doulos". But by no means are a proof of douloi rights and life conditions in Ancient Greece. What exactly Aristotle, Plato, PseudoXenophon and the rest ancients meant when they were talking about "douloi", should be ascertained with original ancien texts of that era. I think one of the realy strong arguments which is made against the redirect is PseudoXenophon. I am currently searching for more original ancient texts related to "douloi" rights and life conditions, because the article's reference only to PseudoXenophon texts may be considered as one-sided argument. I am also going to investigate archeological evidences in Athens (for example if someone could discover traces of chains in the dormitories of the douloi, in Lavrion mine, this could be used as a strong argument in favor of redirect). I hope the rest of you are going to investigate too, otherwise further discussion does not belong here but under Nationalism #Adverse effects on scholarship.

Novel interpretations of ancient texts and archaeological evidence are not the province of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No Original Research. Non-English words are rarely appropriate as article titles: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); there aren't separate articles for "bread", "pain", "brot", "psomi"... or for that matter "artos", even though American, British, French, German, Greek, and Ancient Greek are no doubt not quite the same. --Macrakis 14:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on "novel interprataion of ancient texts ", as long as you admit in your userpage that you are ignorant of the ancien greek language. So please let the experts decide about "novel" or "classic" interpratations of ancient greek texts.

I said I was "rusty", not "ignorant". The Original Research policy says precisely that we should refer to expert published opinion, which you have not furnished. --Macrakis 15:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine! so I am waiting for you to remove your rust, and bring to us your "non original research" ancien texts, that can be used as arguments in order to prove that the ancient word "doulos" has the same meaning that the contemporary english word "slave" has. Will you?

Exactly; all I've seen so far is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you consider perseus project as an original research project, I have nothing else to say. I really cannot understand how, while beeing ignorant of the ancient greek language and the modern greek language, you insist to have an opinion about the subject. I am not teaching you your language, please dont try to teach me mine. By the way, even perseus project are ignorants in their translations. For exampe they translated "ισηγορία" as "equality" instead of "free speech" or "speech equality"...anyway...

The Perseus Project itself is not a research project; it is a collection of documents and tools created by others. The texts on Perseus are primary sources. The Pseudo-Xenophon Constitution of the Athenians is the E.C. Marchant edition and translation—standard, though no doubt not perfect. Perseus also includes some secondary sources like dictionaries. Interpreting sources (especially primary, but also secondary) is part of historical research. Being able to read the literal meaning of the source is only the first step. For example, the text in question is full of irony and sarcasm: how do you separate the hyperbole from the literal truth? I am not asking for an answer here, just pointing out that this all constitutes original research. --Macrakis 14:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether old Oligarch's speech is full of sarcasm and irony, or full of anger, is hard to distinguish and depends on how biased the persons who read it is. Whether it is hyperbole or truth, this can easily be proved by other ancient sources, which I am still waiting for you and the others to bring here.

No, you have it wrong. Neither you nor the rest of us should be engaging in original research, and I see no point in repeating this any more. Goodbye. --Macrakis 22:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong! And you are engaged in original research, when redirecting douloi article to slavery article. I still wonder, what kind of original research books are you reading? Whatever they are, it is obvious that they have not a single proof in favor of redirect. So, as long as you have no more arguments, I am waiting for you to admit your original research, cancel the redirect and bring the douloi article back to its original meaning.

I agree with you that non-English words are rarely appropriate as article titles, but what if there is no english word that can express the meaning of what you want to say? In that case, you have to use a word of a foreign language, or even invent a new word and define its meaning. In our case, and as we have already discussed above, the english language gives a different meaning in the words slave and freeman (as it also does to many ancien greek words, like democracy or anarchy for example). The graduation of freedom in greek language is different and it is slave-doulos-freeman. Also the definition of the words "freeman" and "slave" is different. So I think its appropriate to use a non english word in order to express this different meaning and this different and alternative graduation of freedom the greeks have, in order to be able to communicate eachother.

Re: "what if there is no english word that can express the meaning of what you want to say? In that case, you have to use a word of a foreign language, or even invent a new word and define its meaning."

Actually, the answer to that question is to find an existing article that discusses a similar subject and fold in the content (as long as it's accurate and has encyclopedia relevance, of course). This is already done throughout the Wikipedia (e.g., "semi-direct democracy" is folded into "direct democracy"). You do not use a word of a foreign language for an article title *unless* you are simply creating a redirection. Therefore, the redirection to slavery from 'douloi' is entirely appropriate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

You are not wrong, but there is an essential (and technical) problem here . In our case, and as long as a "doulos" is neither a slave nor a freeman ,or can be both according (comparing) greek definition (to the english one), we have to create a double redirection of the "douloi" article, both to slave and to freeman articles. Of course "doulos" meaning is most of the times much closer to "slave" meaning, but in some cases, people refering themselves as "freemen" may be considered as "douloi" using the greek definition.

If well-sourced, this sounds like a discussion that belongs in both slavery and freeman, with possibly slight differences in each, considering the article they're in. By the way, please sign your posts. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "redirection technology" is not a perfect mechanism, as we only have the option of finding the "best" redirection for each term. But that doesn't mean we create articles because of less-than-perfect redirection choices. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is better to invent a new term or borrow a term form another language, than doing a (partially) false redirect.

Opinions are great, but the opinion about inventing a new term contradicts Wikipedia policy. And borrowing a term from another language contradicts the fact that this is the English Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 12:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Doulos" is not an invented new term, it is an ancient meaning and term that, according to my opinion, does not exist in your language and it is wrongly translated as "slave".

You said "it is better to invent a new term": I was responding to that clause. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You said: "And borrowing a term from another language contradicts the fact that this is the English Wikipedia." I have seen many terms borrowed from another language , in this English wikipedia.

That should only be true of words from other languages that entered the English lexicon, not words that anyone decides to drop into English. Of course, if you have any examples of your position, please present them. (And PLEASE sign your posts! That is a part of Wiki etiquette that you need to comply with esp. with your experience here) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Doulos" ... is an ancient meaning and term that, according to my opinion, ...is wrongly translated as "slave".. I don't think that's the case. The key element of slavery in English is ownership. It's not a question of mistranslation; 'slavery' in English encompasses a concept that maybe has several words in other languages. It's best summed up by saying "a Doulos is a kind of slave". DJ Clayworth 16:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No No! It's best summed up by saying "Doulos is a kind of contemporary "freeman"". I am going to redirect doulos to freeman article.

We've been through this above, in lengthy discussion. Douloi can be bought and sold, are not paid for their work and cannot resign. Such a revert would be very close to being vandalism. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this above, yes. Douloi can be bought and sold, they were paid for their work and they could change their master and ask another master to buy them (so they could resign somehow). They had also liberal rights, their life and dignity was protected by law. So douloi were not slaves, you have not provide until now a signle proof that they were. Your persistence to redirect douloi article to slavery article is very close to being vandalism.

I believe we all agree, except for the anonymous sock puppeteer. Let's be firm about reverting the redirect as necessary, but also be vigilant about the tendentious edits the sock puppeteer is now introducing into slavery. --Macrakis 22:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And you all , you seem to be eponymous sock puppeteers. Could you please stop hiding behind your names and show your real IP adresses, like myself and the rest persons who are against the redirect are doing? My conclusion is that Stevietheman, Makrakis, DJ Clayworth and Septentrionalis are the same person.

Please, now, you're getting even more absurd. The bottom line is that douloi was a variant of slavery, and that's that. The group of us are going to maintain our consensus through persistent effort. So, it's time for you to move on. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the same person, are you? :-) DJ Clayworth 15:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There can be only one. Septentrionalis 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC) :}

In case I am in doubt, I always ask the person who I am talking to, to reveal his IP. In case he denies that, this an undeniable proof that he is a sockpuppeter. By watching your replies carefully, it seems to me that you admit (indirectly) that you are sockpuppets of the same person, right? I knew it! Thats fun anyway... :)

This from someone who doesn't even sign his posts? DJ Clayworth 13:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Add democracy to the list of articles to be vigilant about. I had to revert a bunch of superfluous "stuff" earlier today. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Now History of democracy Septentrionalis 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)