This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
The article says he was commonly known as the Chlorus and then it says this name is given to him by the byzantine historians... So in his lifetime was he called Chlorus or not? If not the first sentence needs to change, if so then the name can not be given to him by the byzantine historians. Remember that byzantine period is much later than his lifetime. Also, there never was a byzantine historian or a state or a period... The correct term would be eastern Roman.
Well, actually I'm with Albanau on this one. For three reasons:
The anonymous essay linked to as a reference for the Greek-origins claim is not a reliable source.
The source doesn't make clear whether it (or its sources in turn) use "Greek" in the cultural sense ('someone from the eastern half of the empire, with Greek education') or in the ethnic sense ('someone with Greek - as opposed to Thracian, Illyrian, whatever - as a native language'). We know his family was geographically from Illyria, don't we?
Textually, the sentence didn't make much sense at that particular point of the article. Sounded as if the following claim (father of Constantine I) was on the same level of "belief". Fut.Perf.☼ 12:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
All the expertise I have on the subject is the fact that I am Greek and as a result know Greek. However, I can safely say that Chlomus (Χλωμός) would have been pale. Chlorus means greenish. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)