Jump to content

Talk:Greeks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Greeks

The very opening of the article is lacking objectivity. "are a nation and ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC until the present day."

There is no actual evidence that Ionian landmass was populated by tribes specifically named Greek as early as 17th century BCE. This name refers to Biothian migrants to the Apennine peninsular.

Further if the name is applied to all populations using related language, then it can not refer to them as either a 'nation' or an 'ethnic group'. Greece was not a nation until 19th century CE, and can be at best referred to in its ancient history as a confederation, often of city-states, or tribal group.

The Ionian landmass was not known as Greece throughout its history, so it can not be said that there was a continuity of population of what is a current political entity. It also fails to attest of other areas populated by users of Ionian language outside of what is now Greece.

The immediate next part of the article conveniently ignores six centuries of history! "Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which coincided to a very large extent with the borders of the Byzantine Empire of the late 11th century and the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world." What does uniform distribution of population mean in demographic terms?! What about Southern part of the Apennine Peninsula? The Byzantine Empire was not solely composed of Greek speakers as it is implied. From the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire to disintegration of the Ottoman Empire that replaced it, the Greek speakers were a part of a larger entity. It seems this was an influential and significant part of history of the Modern Greek nation, and needs to be included in the article if only from objectivity point of view. Lastly, Greeks did not colonize the ancient world. Various tribes who shared similar language settled in different parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, and predominantly in the Ionian region. Because of this fact, their view of the ancient world was a very limited one, confined to immediate surroundings. The phrasing should be that tribal colonization took place in the Eastern Mediterranean to avoid Greek-centrism. --Mrg3105 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greeks

Look, I don't want to dig this issue more than it should be done, but the links to the claim that 350000 Pontian Greeks were killed DON'T WORK.. Pls note...

This is a very serious claim to make, and unless someone can back this up, I will add 'according to unverifiable sources, it has been alleged that...' Baristarim 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See [1] and open the PDF. It says that from 1916 to 1923, about 350,000 Pontians disappeared through massacres, persecution and death marches. --Telex 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem, I couldn't open the PDF version, so I am reading the text version... Let me have a look... Baristarim 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this? [2]. does it work now? If not, let me know, and i will copy paste the text here or in your talk page (where u prefer). --Hectorian 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a document submitted to the UN by some NGO. It would be better if we could get a solid scholarly reference instead. Unfortunately, a quick check at Google Scholar for "Pontian Greek genocide" finds nothing; "Pontian genocide" finds only an incidental mention of the commemoration day. Surely we can do better? --Macrakis 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of Greeks

The article currently says:

Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which coincided to a very large extent with the borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century and the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world.

This description excludes the large populations of Greeks in Crete, Cyprus, the Aegean and Ionian islands, and Alexandria. On the other hand, the "areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world" also included most of Sicily (and depending on your definitions also southern Italy and southern Gaul) and the "borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century" (which varied quite a lot, by the way) included much of modern Romania, Bulgaria, and (former) Yugoslavia. Though there were Greeks there in the early 20th century, they were much sparser than in the core areas. I am not sure how to write this so that it doesn't get bogged down in details. Thoughts? --Macrakis 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct note indeed, but besides the point of the paragraph. The following sentence may clarify the 'need' for those particular areas to be mentioned:
In the aftermath of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) in 1923, a large-scale population exchange between Greece and Turkey transferred and confined ethnic Greeks almost entirely into the borders of the modern Greek state, that is, in areas where groups of Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans first established themselves about 1500 BC.
Unless anyone feels strongly about removing the whole thing, I propose the following wording for the first part:
Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which among others coincided to the larger part of the frequently shifting borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century and to most of the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world.
I am not very happy with the English, but this should solve your concerns. Any other proposal? Any improvement on my text? •NikoSilver• 20:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there ist the classic figure of a Greek "Yiayia" posing on a Wikipedia page, as it does in tourist shops accross Greece. Is this really the type of picture we are promoting and showing as the face of a typical Greek ? The least you can do is post the picture of some younger, more typical (and not stereotypical) Greeks, male and female. Ante geia !

100% agree with the anon! Plus the caption is kinda macabre...•NikoSilver• 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


"confined ethnic Greeks almost entirely into the borders of the modern Greek state, that is, in areas where groups of Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans first established themselves about 1500 BC." This requires sources and clarification. Firstly there is considerable scientific ambiguity about earliest arrival of 'Greek' speakers in the Eastern Mediterranean. Arrival prior to 13th century is a minority view based on extrapolation rahter then archeology. However when the 'Greek' speakers did arrive in the area, they most certainly did not FIRST establish themselves in the confines of the current borders of the modern Greek nation. They FIRST established themselves at the point where they encountered least resistance to settlement. --Mrg3105 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what minority view? since when? The Mycinian civilization begins around 1600 bc if I am not mistaken. So at least from that time.[03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose - Withdrawn

Greeks → Greek people — I'm going to do THIS one step at a time (and can move on to others afterward), but we need consistency for the ethnic group article titles. On one hand, you have Japanese people, English people, French people, Czech people, Spanish people, Swedish people, etc. And on the other, you have Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Germans, etc. Considering it is impossible to change many in the first set ("Japaneses"?), but it is always possible to change those in the second and append "people", it's easiest if we start moving them all to the "_____ people" format. Bssc81 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Use the most common name

I'm opposing on the grounds that being consistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming principles like using the most common name is a higher priority than being consistent within a group of articles that have a common characteristic (in this case, ethnic people). Each article should be evaluated independently and the name most commonly used to refer to that article's subject should be given priority. Only if there is an ambiguity issue do we start looking at alternatives. By the way, the google test results are: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for Greeks 
Results 1 - 10 of about 316,000 for "Greek people"

--Serge 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Fair enough - then perhaps we need to be moving those that CAN move from the first group (Swedes, Czechs, etc.) --Bssc81 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I would support that.
Results 1 - 20 of about 110,000 English pages for "czech people"
Results 1 - 20 of about 2,040,000 English pages for "czechs".
Results 1 - 20 of about 190,000 English pages for "swedish people".
Results 1 - 20 of about 3,070,000 English pages for swedes
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Language break?

The current section on "Modern and ancient Greeks" reads, "The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is the language, which has enjoyed a continuous tradition at least from the 7th century BC to the present day. There has been no break such as the one between Latin and the modern Romance languages, and the only other language which enjoys comparable continuity of tradition is Chinese." I'm changing this because there is no big break between Latin and, say, Italian, just an evolution -- very similar to the cotinuous evolution from ancient Greek to contemporary Greek. Jackmitchell 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian is not considered as a modern form of Latin. Sthenel 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. An Italian cannot read and understand Latin. A Greek (and a Chinese) can read and understand an ancient text (to what extend depends on the type of text and how ancient the text is). [[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk)nefeligeretis]. —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this doesn't matter but

How genetically related are modern Greeks to ancient Greeks?

Well, there is no definite answer to a percentage of "genetic Greekness". There are, however, emphatically discredited studies for the exact lack of this genetic Greekness (see Fallmerayer, and Arnaiz-Villena). Any answer on that matter would be original research for now. However, we can safely assume that this genetic relationship is much closer to any of the non-neighbouring (or even neighbouring) peoples. •NikoSilver• 10:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The genetic relation of modern Greeks, and the people we refer to as ancient Greeks, if such a relationship exists, is impossible to prove either way. Personally, I find it immaterial, and see modern Greece's connection to ancient Greece in terms of the same language (confirmed by Britannica) and certain cultural elements. Interestingly, elements of ancient Greek paganism can be found in modern Greek folklore, most notable, the tendency to refer to the Christian concept of Hell as Hades. Of course, sceptics would attribute that to an artificial "grecianization" - some (mostly FYROM nationalistic) claim that the Greek language became extinct at some point and than modern Greek was revived and imposed on the population of modern Greece (who were originally a mixture of Vlachs, Slavs, Albanians etc). Such questions are loaded with political implications, but we can rest assured that the Greek language never became extinct (Britannica again - as if I need to cite a source).--Tekleni 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a fact that the Greeks since ancient times were always in the majority in the Greek peninsula, that the area was never deserted and that no other population group (conquers or settlers) ever outnumbered them. so, any such theory is just unhistoric and politically motivated... Hectorian 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we know that ancient Greeks were an indo-european people and should fall under one of the haplogroups that would have been prevelant among the inhabitants of europe at the time...which probably excludes E and J from middle easterners. There are many studies that you can look at that show the Y chromosome and mitochondial diversity in europe, this being one > http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf. That's how I come up with my personal conclusion of, they are sorta related with significant Turkish or Arab influence on the gene pool. I'm still struggling to understand how that happened if it did though because of the language, culture, and religious barriers...plus the Greeks and Turks have generally hate each other even today. - Clown

If your basis is that Greeks or ancient Greeks for that matter are supposed to fall under the same haplogroups as most inhabitants of Europe because of their indo-european linguistical heritage, then I suggest you do some more serious research. Do some study on the pre-Greek populations in Greece (e.g.Pelasgians) and you will find many answers as to why Greeks partly fall under haplogroups E and J.(CG)

You know the Turks are not homogenous at all unless it is of mongloid ancestry, They had an empire that took boys and made them convert to islamd and become the janissery, and the girls in the harem, a turk doesn't know what he is because of that, I do agree that there is a small percentage of turk and arab blood but it is very little, I'm from corfu i know my blood isn't tainted by turks.

An unscientific and unsound investigation but one which is highly illuminating, consists of simply walking into a museum or gift shop in Athens to inspect the figures painted on original and replica ancient Greek vases dating approx. 500BC-150AD. Then take a walk outside, go to a nightclub or a restaurant and it becomes blindingly obvious that the modern inhabitants of Greece bear more than a striking resemblance to their distant ancestors. Simple but effective. Regarding possible resemblence to ancients before 500BC, I mean, who really cares anyway?--Smolikas (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

The article is about Greeks as nation or ethnic group. Pericles and Alexander didn't belong to this nation or group. They were "ancient Greek" and "ancient Macedonian". These categories have nothing in common with late medieval or modern Greeks or Macedonians. It would be reasoanble to change the image for a new one with portraits of ethnic Greeks. --Alex Kov 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you before waiting for an explanation here. But I do think this is just bizarre. As the article states, Greeks "are a nation and ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC until the present day." You might disagree with some of the wording, but I think it correctly reflects the consensus both in scholarship and in general perception that there is something fundamentally continuous about this group through the ages. Even if you were to argue that modern Greeks and ancient Greeks have significantly different identities, this article has chosen to treat them all together. Pericles not a "Greek"? Come on... Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pericles is "Ancient Greek" but not the ethnic Greek. Personaly I dont like the image of Alexander to be in the row of Greeks. He was "ancient Macedonian". Probably you know that articles like this are about "ethnic groups". Thus no need to insert Pericles and Alexander into this Ethnic group. Its like putting Ceaser, Joan of Arc, John Paul II into the article "European ethnic group". Its ridiculous. Ancient Greece was not an ethnical or national body but socio-cultural. So please, create article "Ancient Greeks" as ethnic group and insert images of Per and Alex there. But in this article they are inappropriate.--Alex Kov 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to do a massive rewrite of the whole set of Greek-related articles if you wanted to split up coverage in this way. Read this article, it covers both ancient and modern Greeks. You could try to split it up along the lines you say, but I think you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to garner consensus for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
See my reply here.--Tekleni 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What the f**k are you saying??? Of course Pericles was an ethnic Greek like Joan of Arc was French. The ancient Greece was a nation, not a "socio-cultural body". There were different cities, but it was a nation. You mean that Alexander and Pericles weren't Greeks???? Ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks (like ancient Athenians were ancient Greeks), and ancient Greeks were Greeks. You donn't have to be a genious to understand that ancient Greeks were Greeks! It's obvious. Mitsos 09:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation is a construct of the past 200 years. Ethnic group is not - if we knew of a Greek speaking Neanderthal (anachronism) and had a PD picture of him, we could use that.--Tekleni 10:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex you have a personal point of view which does not agree with neither the consensus of scholars nor the perception of people today. In my opinion you have a personal agenda on the subject, for example you can't accept that the world regards "Macedonian" and "ancient Macedonian" as two completely different ethnic and cultural identities, therefore you think that the same should be done with Greeks. Read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR to find out why this is not possible. Miskin 11:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin you misunderstood me. Franks and French are not the same, Romans and Italians too. Romanians are not Romans and Russians have very slight relation to Kievan Rus. German Angls and Saxons werent part of German nation of the 19-20 centuries. My point is that its too risky to see the nations or ethnic groups of the present in the societies and states of the past. My point of view is not just personal. You should read some books of Smith or Anderson on the Nationalism and the origins of the ethnic groups. Ancient Greece was a multyethnic entity and shouldnt be monopolized by nowadays Greeks. I asume that majority of modern Greeks has direct relation to the peoples of Ancient Greece, but not all of that peoples were Greeks in modern sence of this word. Therefore Macedonians or Thracians of the Ancient world culturaly belonged to "Greece" but they werent "ethnic Greeks" in those days nor can be seen as one today. --Alex Kov 16:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the ancient Macedonians and Thracians were ancient Greeks. They spoke Greek. Ancient Greeks were an ethnic group, right? You are saying that Greeks and ancient Greeks are different ethnic groups. That's wrong. The Franks were not French, but the people who lived in France during the period of Joan of Arc, were French. My point is: The people who lived in Greece 5000 years ago were not Greeks (they were Pelasgians, I think), but the people who lived in Greece 3000 years ago, like Pericles, were Greeks. Modern Greek are very similar to ancient Greek, while French has nothing to do with Frankish. The Greeks are one nation (or ethnic group, if you prefer) with a history that goes back 4000 ago. Mitsos 08:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to start our struggle against "Greek monopoly" by removing the photos of Pericles and Alexander from this article, and you expect us to believe that this is not your personal view? What is it then, the view of some sort of anti-Greek-monopoly cult organisation? Well guess what, Greeks do not also monopolise ancient Greece but also the Byzantine Empire. Except Macedonia, none of Greek history was ever claimed by anyone else, so I don't know what you mean by 'monopoly'. But how come you're not concerned by, for instance, Turkey's claims on the history of all Turkic peoples? Is it maybe because nobody gives a toss about the history of Turks? How come there aren't any scholars writing essays on how the Turks and Armenians of today would compare to the Turks and Armenians of the old? Yet there's people like you who do care to question and compare the continuity of Greeks. This has nothing to do with neutrality and scholarship, this has to do with the utility of ancient Greece and its impact on Western civilisations. Despite what you say, there is a majority of neutral and credible historians who treat Greek history as a sole, continuous entity, which is of course sub-divided to different civilisations/cultures [3]. Miskin 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
BRAVO! So true! The english have always been against greece and so have the nords.

There was a lot of debate (/myth) in antiquity about where the various ancient Greek populations came from - the Athenians claimed to be indigenous, but more or less everybody else had a story about how their Founder Hero brought them over from somewhere else (eg. Kadmos came from Egyptian Thebes and founded Boeotian Thebes). So the ancients were themselves aware of that what we'd call a plurality of races had gone into making up "the Greeks." That said, of course "the Greeks" were a nation in antiquity -- the self-identified as such, on linguistic and cultural grounds. So by the ancients' own standards, which were language- and culture-based, the modern Greeks are continuers of the ancient Greeks. The problem seems to me to be that the modern Greeks stake an exclusive claim in that heritage, which only makes them look foolish. There's enough richness in ancient Greek culture to make us all proud heirs of Pericles. Jackmitchell 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jackmitchell: Off cource Hellenism is world heritage but the difference is that I speak the same language (more or less) with Pericles, I leave in the same area, I can understand the meaning of his name etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex: trying to get Greeks to understand Ancient Greece is like trying to explain to a monkey why it is not a human. You are wasting your time, basically. --62.103.147.55 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I always thought we were below 'monkey'. •NikoSilver• 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whather monkeys are above or below humans, nor do I know where Greeks fit into that. What is clear is that monkeys and humans are significantly different, although with commmon roots. Similarly, modern Greeks are not ancient Greeks and it is nothing other than political propaganda to pretend otherwise. The leading writers of the last 50 years have called that nationalism -- as mentioned above, Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson. There are also numerous Greek academics who concur: only idiots with basic school level education argue about these things. --62.103.147.55 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last remark answers it for me. Miskin 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes let everyone share in the glory that is Greece, Yea like the movie Troy where they had mexicans play greek soldiers, or how about Alexander with those thick english, british, scottish accents, Epamiondies was the first son of Greece and Alexander was its last. Why do Greeks Try to have a stake in their past, Lets see why, They were sacked in 1204 by the so called crusaders , than the Eastern Roman Empire falls and they have to subjugated under the turkish yoke for 400 years while the rest of europe is going through their rebirth based on all that was Anicent Greece, started by Greeks fleeing to Italy, so yeah I would think Greeks would be somewhat close to their past no? When you have Slavs saying that there Macedonians, Some guy writing afrocentric crap about the Greeks, or the fact that Constanopole is under turkish rule still which is the equivalent of Rome to the Catholics , that the english still have the marbles, or since the Germans loved Ancient Greece so much trying to make the greeks in late ninteeth century speek attic greek, and than in the WW2 to not feel bad the Germans were told these aren't the real greeks, even though Hitler said "there must be some of that old blood in them" after they beat the italians, yea I would think Greeks must hold dearly to their past , that little fucking country that was built of city states contributed more to the world than anybody else, and the inhabitants of today are greek like Alexander and Pericles was, I swear I'm going to start using barbarians for every non greek

Grek name

There must be an article, or information in this article about "Grek" name and why it was stopped being used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utku a (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 November 2006.

I've never heard of it, but why isn't that covered under the GR (Graekoi) root? •NikoSilver• 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Greek" is a purely Latin word for the Greeks, who have always been called "Hellenes" in Greek; "Romaioi" is a political term, used to refer to the Greeks when there were no Romans left who weren't Hellenes. Jackmitchell 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Greeks and other ethnic groups in Wikipedia

A lot of discussion is goining on about putting ancient and modern Greeks into the same article. Well, it's no better at the Egyptians' corner. They are presented as one continuous, homogenous nation, with pictures of ancient priests and Naguib Mahfouz (among others) as their representatives. Same with the Berbers. I think that, since the people living in Greece at the present are called Greeks, it is enough to have the article titled "Greeks" and sunsequently differentiate between ancient Greeks, Byzantine Greeks, Greeks under Ottoman and Venetian rule, Greeks after the founding of the modern Greek state, as it's done now. It's perfectly misleading. Or we could split all these groups in to little articles and then add a disambiguation page. Someone mentioned monkeys. I suppose that in an article titled "Primates" one can put, or mention both humans and apes. So, as long as there is a clear distinction between ancient and modern Greeks within the article, this shouldn't be a problem. There is also an article on the Greek language as a whole, mabe we should delete that too ? 213.5.26.47 from Greece


U forgot to suggest other articles for deletion or split as well, e.g. Greek Orthodox, Greece, Greek dialects, Greek philosophy, Greek literature,... U know, all those related to those Greeks... Hectorian 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Nobody has said that nationalism (and its spurious claims of ethnic continuity over millenia) is specific to Greeks. This does not make its presence in an encylopedia article acceptable, however. What is needed here is a clear recognition that the concept of Greekness in ancient times was not that of the twentieth century. Ancient Greeks co-existed (as did Byzantine and Ottoman Greeks) with many other ethnic groups, in complex societies. Ancient Greeks belonged to a multiplicity of groups, including village,occupational groups, a local community like the city-state or polis, and also the ethnos. These often conflicted, and the ethnos did not take priority. In marked contrast, modern Greekness is predicated upon a fictional ethnos, which is ideologically bloodline but in reality is equally based on religion, had little to do with language in the 19th century [which is bizarre for any ethnos], and became a nationalistic driving force with the fated Megali Idea. Other forms of social identity, which had existed in ancient times and also continued throughout the Ottoman period, were destroyed in the process of creating the modern Greek nation state. This nationalism is central, both as a characteristic of modern Greek identity and also as a defining difference with ancient Greeks.--62.103.147.55 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, I object very strongly to most of the content of the first two paragraphs of the page, which are misleading and even incorrect. The "facts" included there are contradicted by all serious Greek scholarship on the ethnic composition of 19th C Greece,the events around the exchange of populations etc. and the assimilation of the residents on Greek territory into one homogeneous "ethnic group". Religion mattered more than language, and this situation prevails even today to some extent [although is beginning to disappear]. 213.5.26.47from Greece




Why should there be a clear distinction between "ancient" and "modern" Greeks. These categories are to begin with an antihellenic construct of the barbarians (I mean non-Greeks) of the West and says more about their wish to lay claim first to being the legatees of Rome (at which time they were happy to call us Greeks as long as they avoided using the term Romans) and more recently the of Athens as well, since which time they have applied the sobriquet of "modern Greeks" to Greeks today and "Byzantines" to Greeks of the Roman Empire.

Actually the name Hellene came back into use starting in the 9th century when Greek paganism dissapeared. Additionaly the ethnonym Graikoi was in use by the Romaioi. The term Romaios refered to a Greek citizen of the empire. See here: "The name Romaioi remained attached to the Greeks of the Eastern Empire, while in the West the word Roman developed a new meaning in connection with the church and the bishop of Rome." (Britannica 2007)

Non Greeks even when they were subjects of the emperor were called barbarians, a Greek word meaning one who isn't Greek. Barbarians however were not excluded from any walk of life as long as they were baptized and spoke Greek, i.e. they were Hellenized and became Greek themselves. The western definition of nation which places emphasis on blood is racist and foreign to Greek thought from at least the time of Isocrates. Even today Greek nationalism is non racist and places emphasis on language and religion. Racism is the subject of a the western-inspired neonazi fringe.

The Romaioi were aware of their Greek heritage not just because they could see the monuments in stone, but because they read, taught and preserved those on paper. 75% of the classical world's literary output (Greek and Latin) has reached the world today ONLY through the Greeks who didn't need any barbarian telling them who was or wasn't their ancestor.

This whole misinformation of the wider world is a result of the West's antihellenism. Hobsbaum was basing his analysis on the Westerners' experience of ethnogennesis and as such was correct in what he was saying. Further it is correct that almost all modern nations are recent constructs with little to no cultural or linguistic connection to the populations that lived in their areas in antiquity. However the Greek civilization of antiquity was exceptionaly succesful and crucially left am unusually large literary output which ensured that the Greeks would continue to be interested in and also have access to it.

Nor does anyone deny that the Greeks were influenced by this and altered their perspectives on their past. This is evidenced in the primacy that the Greeks' ancient past has in their self-conciousness and their adoption of the frankish term Byzantium to refer to something which still in their language is often called Romania. Simlarly while the ethnonym Romaioi is sidelined it is still universally undestood by Greeks to refer to themselves. Again this is evidence of the corrosive influence of the West on our identity.

However to go from that to saying that Greeks are a modern nation and compare them with the Egyptian Arabs! is indicative of pathetic ignorance on your part and latent antihellenism on the part of those you parrot. By the by, I can't help I noticing you deleted the ip stamp on your drivel, are you ashamed? I have taken the liberty of correcting this.

Ελλήνων έσμεν τέκνα και βαρβάρων σμήνη ού πτοούμεθα. Δε θα πεθάνουμε ποτέ κουφάλα νεκροθάφτη.

Xenovatis (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Religion mattered because that was all they had during the turkish yoke, beginning aroudn 10th century Greek Nationalism started to move away from this but we all know what happened, Do you understand they were slaves for 400 years, Can't you guys understand that

Actually Greek learning never really stopped even when the universities were closed in 1453. It just moved to the clerics and the monasteries in the Ottoman Greek world but it retained its secular character in the Greek Diaspora of Europe and Greater Greece in Italy. All that meant was that for a few centuries the Greeks were not a lay but a clericaly literate people. With the advcent of widespread education in the 18th century this changed again to the familiar lay literacy pattern of Greek experience.

Xenovatis (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


After a brief reading of the article I feel it should be clearer that the notion o a "Greek people" has, historically, been more associated with language, religion (ie culture) rather than biological/race. Of course, this is an issue which this article shares with just about all other articles on ethnic groups/peoples. CheersOsli73 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Added clarification in the lead, although it is mentioned in several instances (Classical, Identity).Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake population figures

NikoSilver: if you want to give a figure for the Greek population, there has to be a reference. Nationalism should not extend to faking the figures, even though Greece has a long history of doing so.I have put a link for the total estimated population, from which you need to remove at least 700,000 non-Greeks. This comes to about 10m Greeks in Greece for 2005.

Look at the census and the population figures. Greece has many immigrants, but they are not included in the census. so, there is no "fake figures". maybe u are faking the population figures... If u want, place the population number of all Greece at 12+ million (which is the reality) and say that 700,000-1 million are foreign immigrants. but do not remove 1 million from the number of the Greeks in Greece. Hectorian 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, the Census says that the total population of Greece was 11 million in 2001, of which 762,000 were not greeks. Who told you that there are no immigrants in the Census??? This is laughable. Kindly correct the figure, which is basically 10,3m Greeks in 2001, with zero population growth since... so is more like 10,2 for 2006....

It is not about a supposed 2006 census, but about a 2006 estimation. as for the number of the immigrants in Greece and those with a greek citizanship counted in the census, better read how many 'homogeneis' from albania and the former USSR came here. i suppose u would not include them in the non-Greeks... Hectorian 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The only correct data are from a Census, as the estimation is exactly that. The link I gave was to an estimation, and you removed it. Where is a proper link or reference to your figure? And the figure for allogeneis in 2001 is 762,000: homogeneis are additional to that. In other words, your figure is wrong. Please correct the false figure that you have inserted on the page.--62.103.147.55 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry kids, but no one in their right minds can claim that 100% of the population of Greece are Greeks. I added The World Factbook's estimate of 98% of the total population based on a July 2006 estimate. You're welcome :-) --Euthymios 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Euthymio, it is a little better than the previous nonsense. But the total population estimates of Greece for 2006 are all widely varying, quite simply because Greeks as an ethnic group have negative population growth. Any population growth since 2001 is ENTIRELY due to immigration, and since the greek state has no idea how many [if any] of those immigrants since 2001 might be homogeneis, the whole thing is ridiculous. YOu have to use the census data, or some other actual count instead of foolish estimates.

Hearing such silly things makes me wonder if you even know what the Greek immigration law is like. The only foolish thing I see here is your 2-euro chauvinism. Get a username, make some real contributions to wikipedia, and come back to deal with the (+-)0.3% accuracy of population figures later. Miskin 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhpas Mr Miskin you would care to explain to the world what is incorrect with the statements made above? I suggest you read some population data, including the large number of publications with my name on them. I also suggest that you follow the Wikipedia rules and provide proper references to everything put on the page, instead of the school-level "common sense" that seems to prevail on the Greek pages.

Anon, even the source you are citing says Greece is 98% Greek [4].--Euthymios 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Euthymio. The quality of data online for Greek population is terrible. I suggest either the UN POpulation Division data for 2005, which are reasonable estimates, or more correctly the 2001 Census. The accuracy of data on Greek population is not +/- 0.3% as claimed by Miskin, but more like +/-8%. This is clearly a serious problem. The figure of 98% of Greece as orthodox Greek is a piece of nonsense from 20 years ago, calculated from taftotita applications. Effectively, it is meaningless (as indeed it was 20 years ago) and simply reflects the political propaganda of the Greek state, which claims that the only minority is the Thraki minority.

Listen, I don't believe that Greece is 98% Greek. I remember reading somewhere something about official statistics finding that 10% of the population of Greece do not hold Greek citizenship (i.e. are immigrants). Perhaps the 98% figure pertains to the remaining 90% which would be something like 88.2% of the total population. I think all this speculation qualifies as original research though. What is interesting is the question of "what are the Roma (Gypsies/Τσιγγάνοι)?" According to the Greek government again, they number about 200,000 - are they included in the ethnic Greeks figure? According to official statistics again (1991 census), the Thrace minority is 0.98% of the total population at that time (about 28.8% of the total population of Thace at that time). I think we should just stick with The World Factbook's estimate and avoid all the speculation.--Euthymios 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

About 7% in the census are not Greeks or homogeneis, and about 8.5% in other data [link posted to your page]. It might be at 10% total with illegal immigrants, but nobody knows...THe Roma are counted as Greeks, and in fact they themselves insist on it. I do not know of any official data on the number of Roma, but perhaps there are some government estimates. So the 2% is only Greek Muslims [not only in Thraki, actually]. There are no official data on the number of Muslims, other than the 1951 Census. But I really advise, for most countries, against using the CIA factbook: it is full of serious mistakes.--62.103.147.55 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See the article on the Muslim minority of Greece - the source cited is the Greek Ministry for Foreign Affairs and they speak of a figure from a 1991 census (the same figure I mention above). The size of the Muslims of Thrace still there seems to have decreased since the mass revocations of citizenship (of Greek citizens abroad).--Euthymios 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The "8.8% Foreigners" doesn't seem very neutral, it's looks kind of discriminative, as in "8.8% barbarians" or something. Why is the 11 million figure provided in an article that is about Greeks? It looks as if there's 11 million Greeks with an 8% of foreign Greeks, it doesn't make any sense. This information should go to Demographics of Greece or Greece, and restore the raw data here, i.e. the 92% of 11M. Miskin 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding up the no of Greeks worlwide gives something in the range of 13 to 14 mil, to sum up to 19 mil only shows serious probs with addition! Whoever insist on this figure should give references that count for the extra 5 mil. Also it's bizare to give a figure and point to a reference which gives a different figure (No of Greeks in Germany), one or the other should change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksg (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek Statistical Agency at 2001 Census gives 10,964,020 as total population, of whom 761,813 are foreigners (allodapoi-no Greek citizens.)Hence 10,202,207 Greek citizens were reported. From the 761,813 foreigners some are of Greek origin ,especially some Albanian nationals(VorioEpirotes) as up to 2007 they couldn't apply for Greek citizenship (granted to those of Greek origin), hence although Greeks they were reported as Albanians. On the other side from the Greek citizens figure around 100,000 are of Muslim origin (a term describing in Greece Turks, Pomaks, and Muslim Roma) and around 200,000 are Christian Roma. --Marksg 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is a concensus on the No of Greeks in Brazil and no-one insist on the 100,000s figure no more and an agreement that figures quoted here should be same as in references supporting it (Greeks in Germany). We also have an EU reference for 2006 total population in Greece which in my view is a different thing to No of Greeks in Greece and should be quoted in article for Greece not here. For the total No of Greeks worldwide though we still have the 19,000,000 figure supported by nothing but thin air...may I ask where these extra 4,000,000 Greeks live and why they are not reported in per country breakdown?--Marksg 10:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The overall pop is more like 17,000,000 if you add all the numbers in the infobox together. El Greco (talk · contribs) 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even 16 mil. Maybe the 17 mil figure had to do with inclusion of total population of Greece instead of No of Greeks in Greece. Kind of a different think. I'm correcting to 16 mil --Marksg (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Learn to round up, hence the approx. infront of the number. El Greco(talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I should as I'm a mathematician! If you sum up figures in infobox El Greco you get 13,6 mil. If you take into account the 3 mil in USA then you should add 1,7 mil not 3 mil. You count them twice otherwise as you have already added 1,3 mil of them. So 13,6 plus 1,7 gives 15,3 which rounded up (a lot) gives approx 16 not 17--Marksg (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) --Marksg (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the Greek Dispora. And what is it with you and the Greeks anyway? You seem to have an issue with the pop number for some reason. El Greco(talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is about Greek Diaspora. There could be other entries which are not more than a couple of hundred thousand (check Greek Diaspora entry). Hence even adding this and taking into account 3 mil in USA and not 1,2 in accordance to US cencus you are still below 15,5. If you have any reference for the extra 1,5 mil let us know otherwise stop inflating figures.--Marksg (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What high estimates Sthenel? there should be references. At the end of the day addition is not subjective. Not been able to sum up correctly in an article about Greeks is blasphemy--Marksg (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Go and check the numbers in the Greek diaspora. - Sthenel (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You better knock it off Marksg. I checked your contribution history and everyone of your entires except for 7 of them deal with the Greeks page. You got a problem with the Greeks or something? All the numbers are accounted for in the infobox. El Greco(talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a prob with thin air presented as facts...you don't take into account credible figures from cencus at Greek diaspora for Russia or Ukraine for example but higher figures that either do not agree with references given! or are without any references !! Is this your understanding about wikipedia standards?--Marksg (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I've noticed that there are different aspects about polytheist Greeks and if their religion should be included in the infobox. I thought that the main religions of a nation should be mentioned in the infobox but there are so many in this one, especially for a nation in which Christian Orthodoxy is by far (the census of 2001 talks about 98%) the dominant faith. Besides, I know some people who are Jehovah's Witnesses...maybe we should mention them too. This is ridiculous. - Sthenel 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is complete bull. A reconstructed movement (In my opinion a cult) with a mere 2,000 followers (according to the US State Department, although contradicted by other sources of a questionable nature) cannot be representative of Greeks. Muslims and Roman Catholics have lived in Greece for centuries, as have Jews (many of whom are Greek-identifying according according to the Greek Helsinki Monitor) except Jews number about 6,000, too small to include. Mainstream historical religions with a significant following only please.--Domitius 00:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
According to an MSNBC video clip there are 100,000 of them. I don't think there is any fair way to say that MSNBC is noh-NPOV. IF they 100,000 people that means Greece has more polytheists than Muslims. If Muslims are there, by numerical fairness the polytheists must be there. Thegreyanomaly 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also you should know that the polytheists did not choose to convert. Theodosius I and his successors all banned all non-Christian religions. If they worshipped the gods, they would have been killed. That is how Europe was converted. According a documentary I Still Worship Zeus, there are some Greeks to have claim to have been hiding there religion successfully for all this time. Its not exactly reconstruction. Thegreyanomaly 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
They are not 100,000. And I don't know what you are going to prove by adding this. It's not among the main religions of Greeks around the world. - Sthenel 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
But how can you prove otherwise. I have sources for 40k ([[5]] [[6]]) and MSNBC which says 100k. Around 2,500 attended the Prometheia event in March 2005. [[7]]. "Greek Society of the Attic Friends" has 40,000 members hence atleast 40,000 polytheists. There are more of them then Protestants. I am waiting for Jkelly to respond to my message before I revert. Thegreyanomaly 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Still, hardly representative of Greek society; they even acknowledge that themselves [8]. Anyway, when you add Neo-druidism to English people and make is stick (hard as it will be intensely contested), then you'll have a stronger case for adding this here.--Domitius 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish them well in their campaign for religious freedom. However, nothing we've seen yet is a WP:Reliable source for the 40,000 (or higher) figure. The two Web pages you cite report say that the "Greek Society of the Attic Friends claim 40,000 members" (my emphasis) -- that it, it is reporting on their own claim, not estimating a figure independently. I have not seen the MSNBC report; does it do anything more than report this claim? Is there any neutral, third-party evidence? I haven't seen it. --Macrakis 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Homogeneis

Could someone please add content on the legal definition of "homogeneis". This is obviously a critical term in the definition of Greekness, but it is not discussed in the current article. The dictionary definition ("people of Greek origin living abroad") doesn't help, since it doesn't define "Greek origin". Is there anyone here who actually knows the ins and outs of the legal definition? --Macrakis 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Complex business. As far as I can tell, it's arbitrarily decided on a case by case basis depending on what proof the applicant has (or how much cash they have to bribe their way in - it does happen). You can't expect someone who has lived through the militantly communist Soviet Union, let alone Albania, to have many documents to prove it. I'm looking into it though.--Domitius 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal definition depends on which legal body you are applying to for either recognition, aid, or support. The concept of the homogeneity of the Greeks we know to have existed in the times prior to Plato, deriving from the concept of other or barbaros. Thus, this is, essentially, a linguisting distinction - which squares rather well with the question of law or legal standing. James Seneca 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

opening para 17th C

Has the 17th C date been discussed? Why is it set at 17th and not 23rd C (the last obvious - but still partial - discontinuity in the archaeological record)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5telios (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Sorry - pressed save too fast. I just wanted to add thath no mention is made of the 17th C date later in the article. --5telios 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus on the date. Probably the most commonly used date is 1900 BCE (EH/MH boundary, arrival of Minyan ware), but 1600 BCE (MH/LH, arrival of Mycenaean material culture) is also cited. A few scholars support 1200 (LH IIIb/c, though that is not consistent with the decipherment of Linear B), and some support 2100 (EH II/III). These positions are summarized in:
René A. van Royen, Benjamin H. Isaac, Arrival of the Greeks: The Evidence of the Settlements, 1979
Robert Drews, The Coming of the Greeks. Princeton University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-691-02951-2
I have used these sources not for their own positions on the matter, but for their reports on the literature. If you have better and/or more recent sources, let's talk about them! --Macrakis 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am keen on the EHII/EHIII transition although this is problematic in that it does not cover every site (many places exhibit continuation of EHII style). I do not have sources handy, and doubt I will do soon (moving house), but when I have got things together, I will come back to this with sources. I realise that there is no consensus but also believe that this is in no small part due to blinkers (as evidenced by the 1200 date). My question was mainly out of curiostiy as to why the MH/LH transition was chosen. --5telios 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The core WP philosophy is WP:NPOV, which says we report all the noteworthy positions, and mention how well-supported they are by relevant experts, whether we agree with them or not. --Macrakis 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on Φραγκοι

I noticed Sthenel removed the note added by 75.72.163.138 where he/she mentioned that the term Φραγκοι (Franks) is used in Greek to refer to Roman Catholics. This term is actually an interesting aspect of Greek culture and history (i.e. what it says about their self-identity) and I curious why it was removed (the edit had no comment). --Mcorazao 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definition in intro

Let me preface my statement by saying that I know it is always difficult to precisely define any ethnic group ...

I think the intro, despite some efforts to clarify, still is unclear about what a "Greek" is. Granted this is somewhat clarified in the next section but I believe that the intro should stand on its own. The intro implicitly talks about multiple historical groups suggesting that they are all part of one identifiable ethnic group which is, at best, misleading. If you look through history and compare groups that

  • Spoke one of the Greek dialects.
  • Are ethnically descended from those who spoke the original Greek dialects.
  • Have called themselves "Greek".
  • Many other definitions.

you get very different sets of people (major reasons being the assimilation of "non-Greeks" into the Macedonian and Roman Empires as well as the reassimilation of "Greeks" into other cultures). So, for example, talking about historical "Greek colonies" and the "Greek" ethnic group in Greece today is misleading in that I don't know that one can really say that these groups clearly represent a common lineage (some Greeks might consider such statements heresy but, national pride aside, this is reality).

If this article is intended to cover all of these different definitions I would suggest that it is worthwhile to "be clear that it's not clear." That is, the intro should clarify up front that it is not talking about a single unified ethnic group that has existed since classical times but rather is generally talking about various groups that have existed historically with the common thread that they spoke Greek (or have ancestors who did). Note that a weak argument can be made for "cultural continuity" but it is not clear that the modern Greek nation has any more cultural connection to the ancient Greeks than a lot of other groups (granted the modern Greeks have deliberately tried to "revive" a lot of ancient Greek culture but that represents immitation, not continuity).

Am I off base?

--Mcorazao 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are of base! (just joking!) The article refers to a nation and an ethnic group that existed and still exists. “The Greeks (Greek: Έλληνες— Hellenes) are a nation and an ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC to the present day.” Would you prefer the article to refer to:“various people who happened to speak Greek through the centuries- miraculously- in the regions of the Greek world?“ If you doubt that the modern Greeks have any connection with the Byzantine Greeks or the Hellenistic Greeks or the ancient Greeks please read the part of the article “Modern and ancient Greeks” and the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks which is exelent! Thank you for your time. Seleukosa 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover that article is a featured one, as decided by the wikipedia community. Hectorian 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a woman?

Maybe we should add a woman's picture... Does anybody agree? (I propose Cleopatra in case of acceptance)

Exept Cleopatra was a Pharoh of Egypt and is in no way linked to Greece or Ancient Greece :/.--DerMeister 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Why don't you read Cleopatra - why not just the intro? On the original question, I would disagree on the grounds that representations are rare and I am not sure there is a representation acknowledged to be really her. --5telios 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion going on about the future of the 'related groups' section of the infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Any input would be appreciated.--Nydas(Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed here before. Actually, this is exactly the case that triggered the decision to make the field optional a couple of months ago. This article certainly doesn't want it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Article currently says:

However, the Greeks are also defined as a genos (γένος in Greek) in the sense that they also share a common ancestry.

As usual, the passive voice here ("are also defined") leaves open the question of who defines the Greeks this way. I can easily believe that some Greeks subscribe to the notion of a (fictive) common ancestry, but (a) we need to find evidence for this belief and (b) we need to contextualize it. --Macrakis 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

????????Every ethnic group or people has the sense of sharing a common ancestry. What's your point exactly? - Sthenel 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head. "Has the sense of sharing" is not the same as "sharing". The old wording "defined as" makes it sound like an objective definition. I have no problem with mentioning fictive common ancestry as an element of Greek ethnic ideology, but I do have a problem with presenting this as an objective fact. --Macrakis 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But each ethnic group, as a whole, shares a common ancestry, meaning a common ancestral background. - Sthenel 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Each ethnic group may believe in sharing a common ancestry. But no serious scholar has accepted that as a biological fact since the 19th century, though of course it influenced the political history of the 20th century in some rather dramatic ways.... --Macrakis 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so..anyway - Sthenel 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's resolve this the Wikipedia way. Find a WP:Reliable source for your position. I have one for mine.... --Macrakis 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that a people does have a common ancestry, when this people lives in the same region for 4,000 years. - Sthenel 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What you "know" is original research. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. --Macrakis 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Greeks share a common ancestry in which ancient Greeks, Byzantine Greeks etc are included, based on the people who lived in Greece through 4,000 years. In the same way other nations of Europe share a common ancestry, something that is not true for example in the USA where people come from different parts of the world. - Sthenel 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Repeating a claim is not a substitute for reliable sources. --Macrakis 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Macrakis: can I have a look at the (reliable) source you mentioned earlier? Crvst 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see your sources. - Sthenel 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you need sources for the belief in common ancestry, since you believe it yourself, but here's a quick example:

...a re-elaboration of who is Greek... We shall show the dynamic nature of this national identity
Even though early Greek nationalism in the late 18th century was marked by the influence of the Enlightenment (Kitromilides, 1990: 25–33; Veremis, 1983:59–60), ever since the first decades of the existence of the independent Greek state, the nation has been defined with reference to common ancestry (Kitromilides, 1983; Veremis, 1983, 1990), culture and language (Kitromilides, 1990: 30).
Anna Triandafyllidou, Mariangela Veikou, "The hierarchy of Greekness: Ethnic and national identity considerations in Greek immigration policy", Ethnicities '2:2:189–208

The point here is that (a) the definition of Greekness has changed over time and (b) the belief in common ancestry has been considered part of that definition at various times. Surely you don't disagree? --Macrakis 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And what all these prove? - Sthenel 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis: after a quick browsing through that article by A. Triantafyllidou, a snippet of which you provided above, I believe she mostly refers to the political entity (the Greek nation-state, that is) not the Greek people, the latter being of a more complex and fluid nature. Anyhow, in the aforementioned article, there's a quote by Anthony Smith on the definition of nation: "a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members". One could use parts of that quote to support a common ancestry. Crvst 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. - Sthenel 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The Smith quote is fine, but he specifically does not mention ancestry, which would come under "common myths and historical memories". --Macrakis 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sharing a common ancestry could be replaced with being of Greek descent (see Kinship and descent and Cultural anthropology). Crvst 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a circular definition.... Not to mention that it excludes assimilation, which has been an important process in the history of the Greek people. In ancient times, the descendants of the (non-Greek) Minoans became Greek; in modern times, the descendants of Slavs, Albanians, and others became Greek. --Macrakis 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's where you make the mistake. Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics. It's about the common genealogy and family relationships. However, we won't start another discussion about Fallmerayer's views. - Sthenel 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics. It's about the common genealogy and family relationships." If you are saying that the concept of "common ancestry" is really about fictive ancestry, then we are agreeing. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the statement. --Macrakis 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "genos" has to do with genealogy, which means family history, family trees, which are extended to wider kindred groups, thus to a common ancestry. Read the related articles of wikipedia. But your point is to talk about genetics. There is already a section in the article which mentions Fallmerayer's aspects which were rejected. We won't start another conversation on these views. That's all. - Sthenel 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning Fallmerayer is simply irrelevant and inflammatory flamebait, and I will not take that bait.

As for the rest, if I understand you correctly, when you say "family history", "family tree", and "common ancestry" you are not talking about a biological fact, but some sort of metaphor or myth. In that case, we agree, and we just need to find more accurate wording to reflect that. --Macrakis 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In Ancient Greece they used to live with myths and epic heroes. Not now. I'm talking about a biological fact. - Sthenel 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop talking in riddles. How can the "common ancestry" be a "biological fact" when you say that "Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics."? --Macrakis 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is. Off course Common ancestry through culture: Same language, same names, quoting philosophers and scientists of the Hellenic world in every day life. Let me ask you something: is Agamemnon (if he existed) related to the Mycinians of 1600 bc? Is Socrates related to Agamemnon who lived 700 years before him? Is Ploutarxos related to Socrates who lived 600 years before him? Are the last Librarians in Alexandria related to Ploutarcos who lived 300 years before? and so on. Off course it is not a matter of genetics (who cares) it is just common culture. Which through the years of Ottoman occupation was solely preserved by an elite leaving abroad. So because a Greek peasant leaving in Greece at the time didn't know who Iraklitos was, doesn't mean there is no connection between past and present. [[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]

Realtionship With Italian

Someone should put in that Greeks are Realted to Italian, no too long ago it was there but someone deleted it. Greeks are related to Italians (unsigned comment by User:Americanbritishitalian at 2 Jun 07 17:19:08)

This has been discussed to death, and the clear consensus was not to have any "related" field at all. --Macrakis 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i will do some more research and tell you my results --Americanbritishitalian

There is connection with Southern Italians for sure.

Mycenaens and Pelasgians

Some issues in the current version as recently reverted by Helladios:

The Mycenaean proto-Greeks were probably the first historical people to arrive in the area now referred to as 'Greece'

I'm trying to understand what this means. There were certainly people in Greece long before the Mycenaeans. So presumably this statement hinges on the notion of "historical people". If this means "people of the past", clearly it is not correct. Perhaps it means "people mentioned in written records" (that is, by Homer, Herodotus, et al. writing hundreds of years later)? But the Pelasgians, Minoans (Eteo-cretans), Minyans, and Dryopes are also mentioned by Homer and Herodotus. Perhaps it means (the first) "people who left their own written records"? OK, I suppose that's true for the later Mycenaeans on the mainland, but the Minoans had writing before that in Crete (and which was apparently the source of Mycenaean writing).

So what exactly is this sentence trying to say?

It continues:

and the first that can be considered 'Greek' as an ethnic identity taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek.

They are certainly Greek-speaking. But I don't think we have any evidence of "ethnic identity". We don't even know what they called themselves; certainly not Mycenaeans, perhaps Achaeans? And did they consider themselves as part of the same ethnos as the Dorians? After all, both Herodotus (8.73) and Homer (Odyssey 19.172-79) consider the Achaeans and the Dorians to be distinct ethnoi.

Later in the article, we have the passage:

Throughout the centuries, the Greeks have been known by a number of names, including:
Pelasgians - The ancient Greek references to the Pelasgians are confusing; however some ancient Greek and Roman writers describe them as Greeks.

Yes, a few late ancient authors consider the Pelasgians to be a kind of Greek, but "Pelasgian" is never a name for the Greeks at large. If we were to include "Pelasgian" in the list of "names of the Greeks", should we also include "Cretans", "Boeotians", etc.? --Macrakis 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know that until the decipherment of the Linear B inscriptions in 1952 which prove that they are an early form of Greek, the people known as Mycenaeans did not consider to be Greek by the majority of scholars. (A similar situation is going on with the Minoans and we know that if the Linear A and the Cretan hieroglyphic scripts will ever get deciphered and if the decipher prove that they are an earlier form of Greek, then obviously the Minoans will be Greek-speaking at least, if not consider them proto-Greeks as well.)
So perhaps it will make a better sense if the sentence will be something like this: The Mycenaean proto-Greeks were the first people in the area now referred to as 'Greece' (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) that considered to be Greek, taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek. (Obviously someone with good English as Macracis can make a better sentence.)
About the Pelasgians: Greek mythology and most of the ancient Greek writers believe them to be autochthonous. And as it is already stated in Pelasgians article, "contrary to modern understanding, Herodotus was convinced that the Hellenes were not invaders, but descendants of Pelasgians". Of course "Pelasgian" is never a name for the Greeks at large, but the same could be told for the Mycenaeans. And certainly for the same reason we shouldn’t also include "Cretans", "Boeotians", etc, other ways we might as well include the whole list of the Greek tribes!!! Nevertheless, this article should not include dubious information and credibility must be top importance. Helladios 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (I am sorry for my bad English…)
I guess my message wasn't very clear. No one questions that the Mycenaeans were Greek-speakers; as you say, the scholarly consensus is that Linear B is a form of Greek. As for Linear A and the Minoans, we're not here to speculate. The problem is the inference that because they spoke proto-Greek, they had some sort of ethnic identity as "Greeks". It may or may not be true, but there is no evidence for it. As you know, there were other Greek-speaking tribes (Dorians, Ionians, ...) and we simply don't know what sort of "ethnic identity" they had in 1500 BC. As a comparison, think of the situation in Italy: Metternich said "Italy is a geographic expression", and people in the 18th century thought of themselves as Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese, not as Italians, even though today of course we consider all of them to be Italians. If this sort of thing can change in 150 years, think of the 1000 years that separate 1500 BC and the earliest classical Greek texts!
As for Pelasgian, yes, it seems basically to have been a name for the indigenous, pre-Greek people, and we now know that Herodotus was wrong in the long term (though he was right in the sense that Greek had arrived in the area a millennium before he was writing!). The scholarly consensus (which again may be proven wrong) is that the Pelasgians were not Greek-speakers, and quite possibly not Indo-European speakers. So "Pelasgian" should not be given as a name for Greeks. --Macrakis 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But the people that we know as Mycenaeans had all the primal characteristics required so we can be sure that they had a Greek ethnic identity: the Greek language (the most important characteristic of an ethnos), the Greek religion and the Greek culture and customs, not to mention the secondary characteristics like territorial traits etc. (The situation in Italy in the18th century is quite different; one must consider the geopolitical situation in the whole Italian peninsula between 12th and 18th centuries -the Italian city states and the feudalism and so on-, a situation that led Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese people to claim differentiation of the rest of the Italians, as you stated.) As for the Pelasgians, I agree that we are not sure yet, that’s why the sentence in the article is as it is. However, Παναγιώτης Κ. Χρήστου in his work "Οι Περιπέτειες των Εθνικών Ονομάτων των Ελλήνων", (Εκδ. Οίκος Κυρομάνος, ανατύπωση 4ης έκδοσης, Θεσσαλονίκη 2003, ISBN: 960-7812-22-0) includes the name Pelasgians to the names for Greeks. Helladios 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that "this article should not include dubious information and credibility must be top importance". That is why we must be careful not to project 19th and 20th century notions of ethnicity back to 1500 BC.

The notion that "language [is] the most important characteristic of an ethnos" is an Enlightenment idea, about 3000 years too late to be relevant to the Mycenaeans. There have been periods where Greekness was defined by language, other periods where it was defined by (Orthodox Christian) religion, other periods where it was defined by politics. As for the "Greek culture and customs", what exactly do you have in mind as being in common between 1500 BC and 500 BC that isn't also held in common with other Indo-European peoples? In any case, all of these external factors don't tell us whether the various Greek-speaking groups in the Greek peninsula though of themselves as being part of one ethnos. That is an emic question, which etic evidence is not very helpful for. I think, too, you misunderstand the Italian situation. It is not that "Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese people claim[ed] differentiation of the rest of the Italians"; there was no such thing as "the rest of the Italians". And tell me, please, how you know that the "geopolitical situation" in the Mycenaean period was not as fragmented or more so than that in 12-18th c Italy?

Now, for Pelasgian, are you saying that Χρήστου claims that "Pelasgian" was used as an ethnonynm for all Greeks by someone? If not, why is it different from "Boeotians" or whatever? --Macrakis 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid I don’t perfectly understand you; it’s the language barrio you see. To conclude -and make it clearer- are you suggesting that the people we know as Mycenaeans weren’t Greeks? As for Pelasgians as an ethnonym, Χρήστου is using it as a general name for the proto-Greek tribes that arrived to Greece which was then named Pelasgia by them (Her., Histories B, 56). Again, as for the Pelasgians, I agree that we are not sure yet, that’s why the sentence in the article is as it is. Helladios 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that there were several Greek-speaking groups and several Greek-speaking cities in Mycenaean times, but we don't know if they thought of themselves as a single group. I am also suggesting that it is silly to project back modern or even Classical categories into this period 1000 years earlier than our records (Linear B tells us a lot about their language and economic organization, but not much about their mentality). --Macrakis 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We agree there. But the title of the section in the article is "Names used for the Greek people" (I think meaning names used for the Greek people by both the Greeks and by non-Greeks) and not Names that the Greeks called themselves. I'm sure you understand my point. Helladios 20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It should by no means be implied that Pelasgians and Minoans were Greek. The former people was transparent and culturally insignificant, while the latter was influential but not Greek-speaking. Mycenaeans on the other hand were Greek-speaking and mainstream scholarship regards them simply as 'Greek'. What they called themselves is irrelevant. Miskin 11:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I agree that the Mycenaeans are called Greeks in mainstream scholarship. However, the discussion was around one particular passage in the article:

[ Mycenaeans are ] the first that can be considered 'Greek' as an ethnic identity taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek.

The part about "as an ethnic identity" doesn't make sense, because we know nothing about Mycenaean ethnic identity. Perhaps each city thought of itself as an ethnos, for example. And the part about the Linear B syllabary is not really necessary here. --Macrakis 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that they are the first who can be considered to belong to the Greek nation no matter if they knew about it or not. - Sthenel 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a sense of humor! So to be serious, then, we agree that the "ethnic group" language should be removed. --Macrakis 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Romioi

I think there must be a detailed reference to the term Romioi. It isn't just a name. It declares an identity, much more different than Greeks. After reading this article I understand that modern Greeks are, more or less, descendants of ancient greeks. And yes, they are, but in terms of cultural and lingual continuity. For 1500 years the greek speaking christians of the eastern roman empire and later the ottoman empire called themselves Romioi. The modern Greeks are descendants in terms of blood (I couldnt find a better term) of Romioi, not of the ancient Greeks. Because the term Romioi includes the Vlachs (former romanic language speaking modern Greeks), Arvanites (modern Greeks with albanian ancestry), descendants of Latin invaders and the large greek speaking christian group of the people of Eastern Roman Empire, with ancient Greek most of all, but also minor asian, slavic, armenian, syrian origin. How can someone so easily, in ten lines, refers to Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the ethnical changes that happened through its 1.000 years of life? Eastern Roman Empire didnt recognise greek or syrian or slavic or armenian nation under one term: If someone adopted orthodox religion and could speak greek, he became Romaios, that means Romios. That doesnt mean the total extinction of armenian for example race or syrian, but, yes, a certain number of armenians was assimiliated into the eastern medieval Romans, the Byzantines. Eastern Roman Empire, the wrong called Byzantine Empire, was a choana of nations. For example we cannot deny the slavic migration through modern greece and the following assimilation of the slavs.

Things are not as simple as you present them. Aravnites and Vlachs were not Romaioi as they were not Greek-speaking, they were distinct ethnies of the Romeic millet. By the time they were assimilated to the Greek-speakers, the latter was already called Hellenes. "Romaioi" is commonly explained by modern scholars as "Christian Greek", I have at least three sources to show you for this, plus the Latin name for "Romaioi" had been "Graeci". Also Byzantium did recognise ethnies, in fact it separated the world to 'Romaioi' (or Graikoi) and the 'ethnikoi' (nationals). Slavs, Vlachs, Armenians, Venetians and Normans were all ethnie, Greeks (which includes hellenised people) were Romaioi. It is impossible and pointless to try to estimate how many people were Hellenised in Byzantium and how many hailed directly from the ancient Greeks. What is important is that the main regions of ancient Greek colonisation in the Balkans and coastal Anatolia remained Greek-speaking to the modern era. Those regions were the heartland of Byzantium. Miskin 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The heartland of Byzantium never was the today Greece. The heartland of Byzantium, demographically, economically, was Anatolia, from Smyrne to Edessa. Thats why when Seljuks took over Anatolia, Byzantium started to decline. Anatolia saved Byzantium when Slavs entered southern Balkan in 600-800 AD and the situation in today Greece was flexible. But when Anatolia had gone away Byzantium collapsed."Romaioi" is commonly explained by modern scholars as "Christian Greek" Modern scholars speak about christian greek speaking, nor christian greek. Herbert Hunger, Hans Georg Beck, Ostrogorsky state that. Romeic millet in ottoman empire was one and only, with Ecumenical Patriarchate in head. The total ethnic divisions were a later phenomenon. In greek texts from 16,17th century some Vlach and Bulgarian leaders are called, from the greek author, as national heroes. Why?...Things of course arent so clear, but this article is surely far from accurate. Slavs, Vlachs, Armenians, Venetians and Normans were all ethnie, Greeks (which includes hellenised people) were Romaioi... each case is different. The slavs invaders of 7-8 cent. assimilated with Byzantines and relative quickly became Romioi. A part of Armenians also. Descendants of Venetians, especially in Crete, became Romioi (orthodox and greek speaking). Vlachs showed up and after a period of time (remember Erotokritus, where Vlachs are presented as enemies) they did became part of romeic millet. But the point is that in Byzantium noone cared about origin. The language and the religion were enough criteria to adopt the Romaios citizenship. Remember Isauroi, armenian origin emperors, syrian theological writers and hymn composers. The examples of famous people are so many. Consider what happened in the lower classes, when for example emperors transfered slavs from balkan to asia in order to fight heretics.What is important is that the main regions of ancient Greek colonisation in the Balkans and coastal Anatolia remained Greek-speaking to the modern era. You are absolutely right! Thats the point of modern greeks origin theory. But the hole mixed situation for over 10 centuries must be stated. We cannot speak for Greeks with total consiousness from Pericles to Kolokotronis. In medieval times the way people faced their identity was different from the today one country, one separate nation. This complexity, in which many subjects are open to discuss (I am not saying that these issues are completely explained), must be pointed. The way modern greek state faced, from 1830 until today, its origin shows fear for every period of time, in which greek identity is not so clear on the surface. And, it is important to explain how from Romaioi romeic Millet showed up, and how from romeic millet greeks showed up. This article hides all these issues. Thats my disagreement.Latins called the Byzantines as Greeks, not because they believed that Byzantines were ancient Greek origin, but because they claimed for themselves the heritage of Roman Empire and of course for the greek language.

Every nation has some admixture from other peoples, not only in the case of Greeks. You should understand that when foreigners enter a region, the local population doesn't extinct but assimilate them culturally and genetically. So, a local population does not lose its relation to their ancient ancestors because of the invaders. - Sthenel 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The genetical assimilation is something I dont understand. I suppose u mean mixture. Is the greek gen more powerful from the slavic or armenian one? The point is that in the case of modern Greeks we dont discuss about a few thousand foreigners, but a 1000 year process of cultural and racial mixture, with the greek culture, combined with judeochristian religion and roman administration system, always on the top. The critical question is this: are the Romioi, a part of which formed the ottoman romeic millet, from which the greek speaking orthodox part arose as new Greeks, exactly the same culturally, the most important, and secondly racially with the Greeks who entered (who were conquered by Romans is the reality) the Roman Empire? My answer, looking the facts, is no. And this change must be explained and shown. The medieval time is the most crucial for the formation of the new Greek nation. New greek language took its today form in the medieval times, new greek folk culture is in its most part medieval and the racial composition of new Greeks has its roots in the medieval times. I have written 60 lines, but still you accuse me for saying that new greeks and ancient greeks are unconnected. I dont say that. But, except from this undisputable connection, greek history has also other important parts, which are necessary to be studied. I dont believe that ancient greeks are alien to new greeks, but the medieval journey of ancient greeks has a lot hidden elements to offer. Thats my point. I commented this article, because in its substance reflects the new greek state educational system, which, in order to construct national consiousness (as every educational system inspired by 19th cent. nationalism), suppresses crucial historical changes.

Modern Greeks are as close to the ancient Greeks as much as any nation is close to their ancient ancestors. Don't forget that even proto-Greeks had assimilated foreign tribes when they arrived to Greece. A nation, in its history, absorb other peoples and this is a natural procedure. And it is true that foreign people who enter a region, through admixture tend to lose their genetic otherness and become part of the local people in terms of genetic. In medieval times, Greeks did exist as a nation within the Byzantine Empire, and the greek-speaking population of Greece were not just Hellenised people. - Sthenel 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its clear whats my point and its clear whats your point. Nation, as we consider it today, was absent in medieval times. Greeks didnt absorbed genetically other nations, but they were mixed with other people. There is a great difference between these two aspects. You are facing medieval history having in your mind the modern nation-theory, I am trying to face medieval times by its own rules and facts, without seeking to confirm an identity. And last, the greek speaking population were not just Greeks...thats the other side of your statement. We cannot hide neither yours or mine.

I think you need to refer to some specialised sources which explicitely analyse the relations between Latins and Byzantines and you'll get a clearer picture of the situation. To quote from one of these "the Latins viewed the Byzantine Empire as a corrupted version of ancient Greece". The Greek peninsula did become the centre of the Empire during and after the Komnenian dynasty, but at the time it contained only a small portion of the Greek-speaking world. Also don't forget that Thessaloniki had been the Empire's second largest and most important co-Queen city since the fall of Alexandria to the Arabs (in case you didn't know Thessaloniki is in Greece today). The Greek-hellenic national identity was also developed during the same period and the Byzantines "did" care about origin since forever. Heraclius and the Isaurians were very badly viewed for being of non-Greek origin, though completely Hellenized the both of them. At the same period the nobles in Constantinople brag about their Peloponnesian "pure Hellenic" heritage (cited in G. Finlay) while Abba Maximus during his trial in Constantinople is asked "why do you love the Romans and hate the Greeks?" (diati tous romaious agapas kai tous de Graikous miseis;). In the Empire's late period there were massacres against all non-Greeks, including both Latins and Armenians, and the armies were "ethnically purified" by the Lacarides to include only "Hellenic soldiers". Nothing is as simple or as complicated as you make it sound. But please stop mixing irreleval stuff such as modern nation theory and genetics, they would both prove you wrong. The heritage and culture of the Byzantine Empire had a very clear view of what an national identity was. Nation-states didn't exist but nations in the sense of ethnos did, and it was what the empire built itself on. And for what it matters, the vast majority of Greek-speakers in the middle ages were situated in areas that had been Greek speaking throughout much of Classical and Hellenistic antiquity. So like I said, you just need to look into some more specialised sources and understand that your personal opinions are not a source here. Miskin (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

and deemed themselves the ethnic, cultural, and literary heirs of ancient Greece

How can someone certify this statement? There isnt a single medieval greek text, in which such a statement is written. Only in later medieval times, there are a few similar... declarations. We should write what is certified from research, not what we want to believe. Some sources for this argument must be given.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is pretty much common knowledge in mainstream scholarship. See Paul Magdalino, «Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium». Miskin 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of mainstream scholarship, thats why I pointed that. The selfconsioucness of Byzantines was christian, not greek...at least thats the conclusion from studying the medieval greek texts. Thats for the ethnic heirs. For cultural and literary side, medieval greek speaking writers declare that their foretype were ancient and hellenistic writers. But this heir feeling isnt clear at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Ethnic sentiment was weak in late antiquity Christian Europe, but when it existed in Byzantium it translated to the medieval Greek word "Graikos". This word is "attested since earlier times in Byzantium though never in official use" (see Tradition and Transformation in medieval Byzantium - Aldershot, 1991 or P. Magdalino from above). Until 1204 the term "Hellene" has a negative connotation in the vernacular language, but after 1204 it gains ground even in official use. Mainstream scholarship holds that Byzantine self-perception was Greek Orthodox Christian and Greek-speaking, this doesn't imply that there was a Greek nationality, but it does imply that non-Greek-speaking Christians within the Empire, be it Catholic or Orthodox, were called "ethnikoi" i.e. foreigners. I gave you some sources for those claims, which is what you asked for. Miskin 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

`By the early 20th century, over half of the overall Greek-speaking population was settled in Asia Minor (now Turkey)`

This sentence if not reliable because no source if cited. Therefore, if no one objects, I`ll erase it.Thelorien 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And I find it unlikely, even including the Romaic-speaking Muslim population who do not self-identify as Greeks and were not exchanged.

Carleton Coon

Many modern scientists and scholars (e.g. anthropologists like C. Coon and geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) have supported the notion that there is a dominant racial connection to the ancient Greeks. Other scholars, notably popular in Nazi Germany, have supported the refuted theories of the 19th century historian Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who claimed that the ancient Greeks genetically disappeared at some point, and as modern Greeks have no genetic or cultural connection to them, Europe owes them nothing. It should be noted that Fallmerayer's theories specifically aimed at the Greeks of Morea (Peloponnese), which at the time constituted less than a sixth of the overall Greek population, a fact which was being constantly ignored by his later supporters. His essays were refuted by numerous scholars of his time and were characterised by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities as biased and unscientific.

"C. Coon" should not be cited as a modern authority on genetics; he was one of the last remaining upholders of human polygenesis, and his general theories are as passé as Fallmerayer's. Nor do he and Cavalli-Sforza add up to "many". The entire denunciation of Fallmerayer is off-topic here, and would be excessively heated even in his own article; although I of course agree that he was speaking nonsense, although once widely accepted nonsense—a point which is lost in this text, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've urged including Fallmerayer myself; but Wikipedia doesn't do passages like that. We don't abuse even discredited nineteenth-century racists; WP:NPOV has a section on why we don't abuse Adolf Hitler .(Still less, of course, do we do it by appealing to twentieth-century racists like Coon; if for no other reason, it's unconvincing.)
Accuracy also enters the question. It would be nice if Fallmerayer had in fact been ignored and refuted since 1840, except for the Nazis; but if so, we wouldn't mention him any more than we mention Hans Hörbiger in Moon. His importance lies in the people he did persuade, from Martin P. Nilsson to Edith Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuity

The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is the language, which has enjoyed a continuous and documented tradition from at least the 14th century BCE to the present day, some 3400 years. There has been no break such as the one between Latin and the modern Romance languages and the only language which enjoys comparable continuity of tradition is Chinese

This really won't do either, unless someone has found a document between, say, 1200 and 950 BC. Furthermore, while Browning may deny the parallel Classical Greek:formal Byzantine Greek:Demotic::Classical Latin:Medieval Latin:Italian (and I should very much like to see his words), it is routine in other sources, and denial should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, but in Browning's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

The article says that there are 170,664 Greeks in Brazil according to some 2001 census. There is no source for this and the Greek MFA estimates the number of Greeks in Brazil to be between 25,000 and 30,000 [9]. I suggest that the user Sthenel made a mistake in restoring it and that the article needs correcting.--NetProfit 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then don't delete it, update it! El Greco (talk · contribs) 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


GA Review

I think this article meets most of the criteria for GA, but I am concerned that it misses the mark on

"3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style),"

in the "Identity of the Greek people" section. It does not discuss the Peloponnesian War, Alexander's unification of the Greeks, or the Hellenistic era. I also think that some discussion of Ionians, Acheans, Minoans might be appropriate as other proto-Greeks. The section is the meat of the article and it is oddly selective in its coverage.

I will review any changes made in the next 5 or so days and hope to promote this article at that time. Regards, Argos'Dad 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't care what GA does; but please read this carefully first; it's not a neutral article, it's a polemical essay about Greek cultural continuity. This is why it doesn't mention the Peloponnesian War, as embarassing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Greeks#Modern and ancient Greeks section? Would deleting it help?--NetProfit 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the POV begins with the insistence in Mycenaean Greeks on continuity over the Greek Dark Ages, which is almost entirely conjecture; continues with the bizarre excursus on omothriskon in the middle of the discussion of Herodotus, and continues onward. This POV is neither irrational nor even very far wrong, but it belongs in a Greek Independence Day speech, not a good article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see Septentionalis's point. Can we get some sources for the premise that Mycenaeans were Greeks. Also, the omothriskon information needs to be sourced or removed. Finally, we still need to add/expand the other sections I mentioned before.Argos'Dad 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether or not the Mycenaeans were early Greeks was solved once and for all by Ventris's decipherment of Linear B. We have no record of what they called themselves, but even if we did, there have been numerous names of the Greeks throughout history. That the Mycenaeans didn't call themselves "Greeks" is irrelevant; neither did Homer, Pericles or Alexander. It follows that if Mycenaean was a form of early Greek, there must have been a continuity of oral tradition that kept the language alive during the Dark Ages. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That was not my point. The Mycenaeans were Greeks; but their writing survives for a very short span of time (they used unfired clay; what survives is the current records when their citadels burnt down, preserved by the conflagration.) We know very little about them; we have no record at all of the Greeks for about three centuries after that; the claim of continuity is ideology, not scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "continuity" is entirely subjective. Who decides the maximum acceptable gap between records? If not three centuries, three decades? Three years? If the Mycenaeans were Greeks, and three centuries later the Greeks were still around, isn't it obvious that they were never extinct? Or did the "new" Greeks somehow revive the language of a people long forgotten three centuries earlier? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument is not nonsense; I never said it was. But Wikipedia is not the place for making entirely subjective arguments. (No existing people was ever extinct, just as no existing biological species has been; that's what extinct means.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Promoted as GA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I am not promoting this article because I believe that it is not broad enough in scope (as discussed above). I recognize also that some are concerned that the article is not a fair representation of the matter by claiming that Mycenaeans are Greeks (or proto-Greeks as the article is currently presented). I don't share that concern for two reasons: the article clearly uses the culturally appropriate definition of Greek as those who speak the Greek language and by that standard the Mycenaeans were Greek (or proto-Greek), and secondly, because the Greeks themselves consider the Mycenaeans as Greek and no one else claims them as another ethnic group. I recognize that is the basis for the POV claim (i.e., because the Greeks believe that it is POV to include it, but I am not sure I see what the other point of view is, and I certainly don't see anyone adding that view.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment, please feel free to seek a review of it at WP:GAR. I will continue to work with others on this article in hopes that it can be a GA in the near future. Argos'Dad 04:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Go check people

the page for the Azeri people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_people) compare and see what a joke our page looks like.We should totally reshape the page not only the way it looks "artistically" but also to the degree it corresponds to an encyclopedia(citations,cover up of a handful of aspects,speaking about modern days and not 99% about the past etc etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle of Pontus (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsaharan Fyrom lie exposed.

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b

Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.

The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews". They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."

It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USAMegistias (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'Within the loci studied, the genetic composition of the Greeks indicates a significantly low level of heterogeneity with other European populations'

This is a weird sentence and it made me think the opposite when i first read it and contradictory to the sentence before it, until i looked at the actual source. To prevent confusion, this should be rephrased. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

17 Million ???

The numbers are exaggerated ... again. I have looked through the history an have seen statements leading to nearly 20million! the total amount of greeks works out as 13,626,038 (according to the data shown) not 'approx. 17million'. I have therefore change this to 15million as a compromise, however we must remember this is a wiki and not a nationalist site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.101.26 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect this allegation about nationalism is silly because it presupposes that nationalists can't do simple math. Or that they think other people cannot do math either. Dr.K. (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What is it with some users and that total Greek population number!?!?! I've never seen any of the other ethnic groups get so much hassle for a population number. El Greco(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the numbers do not match what is written, at least remove the word approx. because there is not approximately 17million greeks- you are claiming that there is an extra 3,373,962 people this is why i tried to compromise by say 15million even though this is still a high number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.101.26 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. But since I am not inclined to check the numbers, (a rather boring proposition for me), I have to remark that if the numbers do not add up to 17 million then the anon may indeed have a valid point. Dr.K. (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The 17 million figure includes those of Greek ancestry who might not necessarily speak the language. This would therefore include the 3 million Americans who claim Greek ancestry, thus raising the total to 17 million. Thus, there are 14 million Greeks by the "strictest" definition, but 17 by the least strict. from what I seen, the articles on ethnic groups tend to quote the larger estimate, so I think we should go with that. 17 million is also the figure customarily quoted in Greece by the way. And as El Greco, points out, this is already the second time in a few months where I've seen an anon user obsess about the total figure of Greeks. Interesting, huh? --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The frequency of raised objections is an indication that the article is not very clear as to how the numbers add up. We should welcome that and thank the anon for raising a valid point. Now if we include your phrase The 17 million figure includes those of Greek ancestry who might not necessarily speak the language. This would therefore include the 3 million Americans who claim Greek ancestry, thus raising the total to 17 million. Thus, there are 14 million Greeks by the "strictest" definition, but 17 by the least strict. and put a few citations here and there for good measure, I think this should clarify the matter considerably. Thanks for your input. Dr.K. (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Hellene

I have heard that the pre-Greek inhabitants of the southern Balkans, the Pelasgians, called Greeks "Xellenes" which meant newcomers, and this is the origin of the word Hellenes. Could this be true? Edrigu (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fishy. We have something at Names of the Greeks#Etymology and the origin of the term "Hellenes". Please note that the second half of that section, from the mentioning of "...texts by Aristotle..." onwards, is pretty poor quality, take it with a grain of salt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there favoritism for the word "race" on the Greek migrations section?

When you talk about "race" you are talking about biology, and biologically all humans are the same-you are splitting hairs if you believe otherwise..we share much of our DNA with chimpanzees. The thing that differentiates one group of people from another is culture, mores, values, etc. The concept of race is a human construction that has no real basis in biology. For example this can be illustrated with the Africa land grab...the Hutus and Tutsi kill eachother because the colonial powers implemented a "divide and conquer" strategy-giving one group power to govern because they were "superior" to their neighboring tribe (might as well be called the "Goodie race and the Baddie race")...ultimately leading to the oppression and domination of one tribe over another -and a power struggle insues. Since the Bantus and Tutsis are too busy killing each other, the colonial power doesnt need to worry about any of their interests in the area going up in smoke because of a popular uprising-the "Goodie" tribe or whoever the colonial power picked to govern the area would never give up their new found power. The Hutus and Tutsi are no different from eachother-it is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, WITH NO BASIS IN BIOLOGY.

Excerpt from the Hutu article: "The division between the Hutu and the Tutsi, the larger of the other two groups, is based more upon social class than ethnicity, as there are no significant lingual, physical, or cultural differences between them.

If you believe in science and evolution its obvious that saying stuff like the English and the Spanish are different "races" is silly, because they were a single breeding population for millenia, only splitting off after the Last Glacial Maximum(it is well known through genetics that the British and a large portion of Western Europe can trace their origins to the Iberian refugia-the r1b haplogroup originated there). If you talk about European populations it is REALLY splitting hairs... http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60950-1?large_figure=true. Thats the European population under the "microscope." These differences are insignificant.

But if the people who maintain this article want to say the Greeks are a "race" separate from the Albanian race and the Macedonian race, etc and believe the Greeks have maintained some kind of racial purity to the point that they arent like other populations around them, then whatever, then they are as crazy as the people who try to guess the "race" of people on the street because they look a certain way or have a particular phenotype-which again is insignificant when trying to determine "race." There is much diversity in people, and you canot call a specific trait as 'belonging' to a race-like blue eyes and blonde hair in the "Aryan race." Himmler saw a blonde haired blue eyed jew when managing the operation of a concentration camp, and asked the guy if he was really jewish..and when the guy said "yes" he said "I cant help you." The Melanesians of the Pacific look like black people, but genetically they are more closely related to Filipinos and Polynesians. So phenotype or appearance has virtually no effect on who we are genetically, and thats what many people use to define 'race'...and in the BIG picture we are all virtually the same...and in the REALLY BIG picture we arent that different from the great apes...so why should you call the Greeks a 'race'?

In sum, the term 'race' is a social construct and we shouldnt use it. There are no races. Im changing 'race' to 'peoples' again in that stupid picture...

134.121.247.116 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is highly outdated. It reflects the pre-1950s belief that the Aryan, blue-eyed blond-haired Greeks "invaded" from the North and brought the Greek language into Greece, while recent scholarship tends to agree that the Greek language originated in Greece and that there is strong evidence for a migration from the east rather than the north. Also, Thracians and especially Illyrians are not "Greek people". I propose to remedy this controversy by removing this outdated map altogether. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. How about trying to make a replacement? Megistias was quoting a paper the other day that included a map of reconstructed locations of Greek proto-dialect in the prehistoric period before the Doric migration. It could be joined up with my new map of the historical Greek dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am no expert in race terminology of any kind. I was just being conservative after I saw this. I trusted this reversion better. Then I saw the caption on the map and I thought ok, the caption says that, the author (H. G. Wells) seems respectable what's the problem? Now Tsourkpk and Future Perfect come in and explain this, I have no problem. I just wanted someone to explain it to me, since ideally I wouldn't choose to research these concepts on my own. Your explanations, gentlemen, sound eminently reasonable and H. G. Wells now looks tarnished. It's good his imagination didn't go wasted. He produced some great science fiction. I never knew he also produced ethnological fiction in the form of maps but that's why I'm in Wikipedia. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree...if that picture doesnt reflect what is known now then it shouldnt be used..didnt know it was that old. We know a lot more now, about languages, migrations, genetics, etc. Back then they didnt know anything about human population genetics-they classified people based on phenotpye like skin color/pigmentation, hair, cranium measurements and junk like that-which are all subject to selective pressures in the environment where the people live. All satisfying the need for humans to catagorize people into different groups...im not saying all people are exactly the same, but there are no significant differences in all humans, we all have the same amount of bones, teeth, etc and are all evolving in the same direction because we are still an interbreeding population. Not different species, sub-species, or any other term some aryan nation weirdo would come up with. For that to occur, different populations of humans on different continents have to be separated long enough to evolve to the point that they cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. If this were to ever occur 1) An interbreeding population would have to be split up or be isolated by a barrier, 2) It would have to be long enough for significant genetic drift to the point that significant differentiation has occured and 3) When the barrier disappears, the two groups cannot interbreed anymore because of pre-zygotic or postzygotic differences. Last time i checked this hasent occured yet.. Differences that are seen in human populations are for selective reasons...blood groups with antibodies to protect from certain diseases, rhesus + or - blood, paternal Y-chromosome haplogroup and maternal mitochondrial DNA haplogroups (which are useful in the tracking of human migrations),SNPs,short tandem repeats (which can measure how long ago two populations split apart from each other, etc, and the differences are insignificant. These are the differences that geneticists talk about when they see similarities and differences in populations, when certain populations cluster together. Im sort of interested in physical anthropology, genetics, and the like(good site for others interested: Dienekes' Anthropolgy Blog- http://dienekes.blogspot.com/) and have poured over many studies.. and ive never seen Cavalli Sforza or anybody use "race" in a study. So its good to not use it here either. Thanks..

134.121.247.116 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this picture is a relic of the past. Thanks for the info and sorry for the misunderstanding. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
All in favor of removing it then? --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the logical follow-up from this discussion. Dr.K. (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it (it was quite a relic all right), perhaps what Future suggested should be done. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
We need something like this but one that looks good.[10]Megistias (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't care about removing the word race but the anon's argumentation is poor. The word 'race' as it is used in the article is a direct translation of Herodotus' phyle and doesn't necessarily draw a parallel to modern racism. Regardless, the modern definition of racism does not necessarily relate to biology as you stated, it can have cultural and even social context and you should look that up in a dictionary. On the other hand as it is well known Herodotus and the ancient Greeks spoke of a common race/ancestry based solely on their religious-traditional beliefs (as the sons of Hellen). This tradition is known today as Greek mythology, therefore in this specific context the word 'race' doesn't relate to biology by default. Also I would like to ask from the regular editors to remove the section about genetics and from people in general to stop using genetics or biology as encyclopedic material in ethnic group articles for the simple reason that they don't understand f* all of what they're parroting. Miskin (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


With all due respect guys, but the article is full of grammatical mistakes and the language sounds somewhat pedantic [ e.g.The Mycenaeans were first "proto-Greeks" in the area and During the Byzantine Empire, which was dominated by ethnic and linguistic (sic) Greeks, the culture shifted away from paganism and ancient philosophies in favor of Christianity and a successor empire to Rome]. Can you honestly make any head or tail of that? Isn't there any way to avoid at least some of the most obvious inaccuracies [Ancient Greek colonies and communities were established throughout the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, including Magna Graecia, Marseille and Barcelona!!]? Emporion (modern day Ampurias) would be a much more apropriate example of a Greek colony in Spain. It has been excavated and the results of the excavation have been adequately published. As far as "race" is concerned, it shows poor taste and its connotations are easily misunderstood. The word phyle is usually translated as tribe in English (as in the Ionian, Dorian... tribe or the kleisthenian "ten tribes" of Athens, the so called "deka phylai") but at any rate I can't be sure how words taken out of context should be translated. The full quotation from Herodotus might help. Hope I haven't caused vexation to any editor in here, I am not at all aquainted with the prevailing norms. I am just starting to understand how this whole wikipedia thing works so I am going to refrain from any edits (I tried some yesterday but I see now that I shouldn't have)--92.118.170.217 (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree about the pedantic language and factual inaccuracies. I'll restore the intro to a much older version which was pretty decent but for some reason got "re-written" to something much worse. Barcelona wasn't even a Greek colony it was phoenician I think. The Myceneans were by no means "proto-Greek", if you want to give them a name that would be Aeolo-Achaean but it's best to stick with the fake name "Mycenaeans". There's no vexation, sorry about my occasionally polemic overtones, but I really think you should make an account - it literally takes only 5 seconds. Miskin (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An example of factual inaccuracy which I removed:

During the Byzantine Empire, which was dominated by ethnic and linguistic Greeks, the culture shifted away from paganism and ancient philosophies in favor of Christianity and a successor empire to Rome.

Not only wrong but opposite to the truth. The Byzantines favoured ancient Greek philosophy and learning over anything else to a disgusting degree - and by that I mean developing a disglossia between a popular Modern Greek (Romaiika) and a written/official Attic-like Greek (Ellinika). Miskin (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I just found out that not having an account may be considered impolite. I had no such intention and I hope that no offence is taken. Barcelona is indeed, considered by some as a Phoenician settlement but the excavations undertaken so far have produced little conclusive evidence. Proto Greek is a vague notion and nowadays it is mainly used in linguistic rather than archaeological/anthropological contexts, appart from that it is definately a misnomer when applied to Myceneans. The Byzantine Empire was predominantely Greek in terms of language and culture not ethnicity. At the heyday of Byzantine expansion it included Egyptian, Syrian, Armenian, Italian, Germanic, Slav, Persian, North African, Iberian... populations. It became increasingly Greek in terms of its ethnic make up from the 7th century onwards, and it was heavily hellenised by the 11th century. That's not to say that it doesn't somehow fall in to the scope of Greek history and culture. English is not my native language therefore I would be extremely hesitant to go through with any changes. I have a lot of questions concerning wikipedia policies etc and I was wondering whether you could help me out. I'm not even sure if this is the apropriate place for my questions. Should I take it to your talk page or is there any other more common procedure?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree Mr. Tzimas. The Greeks of the Byzantine Empire did possess an "ethnic consciousness" even if they stressed the linguistic and cultural aspects of their identity. The appropriate articles on Wikipedia indicate this quite clearly. This is not to say that the Byzantine Empire was not multiethnic since almost all empires in history were multiethnic. Nevertheless, the dominant force behind the Byzantine Empire entailed the Greeks.
Of course, I really could care less about debating history. Our purpose as users here is to ensure that this article reflects forms of direct evidence. Everything else is merely hearsay. Take it easy folks. Elysonius (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Elysonius, I very much appreciate both your view and your response to my comment, but it seems that you missed my point. I never suggested that the Greek element in the Byzantine Empire did not posess its own ethnic consciousness (there is ample textual evidence to this effect) and I never stated that they (the Greeks) prefered to stress the "linguistic and cultural apects of their identity". There was no need to do anything of the sort since they originally perceived their identity in terms of religion rather than any other elusive notion (and there is ample textual evidence to this effect as well). The fact remains that the Byzantine Empire had not been "ethnically" Greek from the start. It became so gradually and that's the commonly held view in academia (both Greek and non-Greek). As for your remark concerning what an article should reflect and what everything else is, I should thank you for bringing this up and urge you to have a look in Cyril Mango's, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome, p. 26 (London, 1980). There you will find a nice overview of scholarly arguments concerning the identity of Byzantium (have a look at the endnotes as well; I am sure that you will find them quite illuminating and full of bilbiographical references). The most recent treatment of the subject can be found in Averil Cameron's, The Byzantines, pp.15-19 (London, 2006), which by the way has been awarded the most prestigious John D. Kritikos prize for 2006. This is the academic "hearsay" on the subject. Therefore, I can't see much of "debating" coming out of this one. At any rate, thanks again--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mycenaean Greeks

There is a whole lot of strange things written in this section. I have added a citation / reference tag in the hope that we can get some sources for the strange claims in the text. --5telios (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't think that sourcing is what it needs. A thorough rewrite would be more in order. Myceneans did not arrive in the 16th century. Their civilisation is attributed to the pre-existing middle helladic population, which had arrived at the end of the early helladic period. That's the mainstream view I am afraid. The architectural echoes of "minoan columns" have nothing to do with the development of later Greek architecture. The process was much more complex and there is an ongoing lively debate concerning the origins of classical architecture. The so called "Heroon of Lefkandi" along with other early iron age constructions in Greece and the colonies are now considered more plausible candidates for the re-emergence of monumental architecture in Greece. A simple look in Gruben, Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer or in Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers´ Dwellings to Temples (to mention just two) would convince even the most avowed hardliners. The editor of this section is trying in earnest to defend the continuity of greek culture in the early iron age, but this has never been seriously doubted in mainstream scholarship. Maybe he is overreacting to an editor's note I saw recently in wikipedia doubting the continuity of the Greek language from the late helladic period to the early iron age... but I am getting carried away and that's probably irrelevant LOL--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


George, I am playing "kid gloves" for the moment. When the section is not sourced or not sourced with sufficiently good sources in a reasonable period of time (give it a month? less?), someone can go in and re-write this nonsense with impunity. If we were to go in and re-write it now, you'd have a revert war on your hands (a charming feature of wikipedia whereby, for example, saints Cyril and Methodius change ethnicity every ten minutes during the average day, from Greek to Macedonian and occasionally to Bulgarian depending on who is editing the article). --5telios (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No guys, be BOLD, go ahead, rewrite it, any time. Can only do the article good. I think you've both captured what the problem is with those passages pretty well, and you seem to know a thing or two about the topic, so why not just tackle it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

fellow greeks

I saw the British article had more pictures of people in their article than us, we gotta add more, Aristotle, our basketball team (any because we are awesome and kicked ass), Pryhus, heck even that chick from my big fat greek wedding, we gotta add more! --Greek Mercenary (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We could easily fit a second row. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic and picture

I separated the Hellenistic from the Classical era in order to broaden the article's scope as per the GA review instructions. I also changed the pic to include Greek women and gays as well in order to make it more representative of Hellenism as a whole, not just Greek men. Please discuss if you think any issues with the changes need to be addressed. I think Cavafy is also important as arguably the most famous Greek man of letters in the last century. I am also open to other nominations, I was also thinking of Papanikolaou of Pap test fame who probably contributed more to modern civilization.Xenovatis (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of notable Greeks on the infobox

I think that we should come to agreement about whose the pictures we could put on the infobox. They should be well known Greeks, from ancient to modern times, about six in number. Any suggestions about the persons depicted? - Sthenel (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to reduce the number to six but would insist that women and gays are represented there as well, at least two of each, and also that they be famous in world terms not just among Greeks. I.e. Kapodistrias offered alot to the Greek cause but little to the world as a whole. Conversely Papanikolaou has saved millions of lives but didn't really do much for Hellenism per se. I would vote for including the later over the former. Also I consider the impact of C&M on the world almost equivalent to that of the classical era authors in that they helped propell to literacy a huge group of nations (the Slavic people). So I will be supporting their inclusion as well.Xenovatis (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the following would be great: Homer, Alexander the Great, Achilles, Pericles, Aristotle, Socrates, Plutarch, Odysseus, Leonidas I, Theodoros Kolokotronis, El Greco, Ioannis Kapodistrias. We should put some notable Greek women like: Helen, Olympias, Cleopatra VII, Laskarina Bouboulina. - Sthenel (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's more or less what I included do you want to see the new picture and (1) tell me who should be removed and why and (2) who should be added and why. I made a case above on excluding people like Kapo who didn't make an impact in the wider world. Helen, Achilles etc are semimythical people so wouldn't really be appropriate there. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypatia shouldn't be included. Laskarina Bouboulina is one of the most famous women in military history worldwide. Olympias and Cleopatra VII are also famous. - Sthenel (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypatia has 1810 hits on Google book and Bouboulina only 294. Clearly Hypatia is the more notable. Other than that why shouldn't Hyp be included? Cleo is in there allready and well Olympias, aside from bearing Alex didn't really actually do much. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am also considering ditching Homer but I really wanted to have it chronologically and there wasn't anyone else from the pre-Classical age.Xenovatis (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't count how significant a person was for the Greek history. These people should be included. Many foreign people have interested in Bouboulina and she was the most famous women of modern Greek history. Hypatia wasn't. - Sthenel (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big friend of these galleries anyway, but just a quick note, I'd strongly urge to only use historically authentic images in the case of historical personality; on that count Hypatia would be out (the image being a 20th-century artist's impression.) On the other hand, I'd also be wary of laying too much of an emphasis on warlike national hero figures; for instance, there's no need to have more than one 1821 fighter. Really, these galleries don't fulfill much of a useful purpose anyway and most of the time serve only as a vehicle for fighting out some ideological preoccupation among our editors. I'd be glad if we could get rid of them altogether. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The point about national warlords was pretty much what I wanted to make as well. Bouboulina and Kapodistrias were important for Greeks but didn't really do anything important in ecumenical terms. I wanted to include people that were actually useful and also make sure its not just about men. Although Alexander probably covered that in the previous version anyway. In any event I will try to look for some more contemporary impressions of hip Hypatia though I am not hopefull. Any ideas on other women we could be using? Thanks for taking the time to discuss this guys.Xenovatis (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well this is something that doesn't happen very often but I have to disagree with Xenovatis. Ioannis Kapodistrias did not do something of ecumenical importance? How about being the forerunner of European integration and liberalism, the constitution facilitator for the grateful Swiss and the European bullwark against Metternich's absolutism, among many other things? I know he is an often neglected historical figure but let's end this neglect right here. Other than that do what you must with the depictions of these figures in the gallery. Talk to you later. Dr.K. (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I was aware of his role as an organizer of the Swiss federal state for the Czar and he was certainly alot more than just a Greek politican being the Czar's minister of foreign affairs but I was not aware of the information you post. I will be reading up on it. In any event I only changed it in order to add some representatives of the other 50% of Greeks but in all honesty am not married to the current line up and will welcome any alternative as long as women are included. Thanks Dr. K, take care.Xenovatis (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ioannis Kapodistrias is extremely notable. And as for women the above choices are the most appropriate for me. - Sthenel (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xenovatis -just to save you the trouble of looking around for Hypatia representations- unfortunately there aren't any contemporary portraits of hers other than a late cameo in the Cabinet des Médailles of the National library of France (even the identification is disputed I think and you won't find it in the internet). Historical authenticity cannot be taken into account because then you will have to exclude every candidate before the beginning of the 4th century BC - no real portaiture existed before that (save some rare exceptions like Miltiades or the Tyrranicides). I have to admit that I also find the gallery idea a bit redundant but I wouldn't object to having one as long as it excludes anything tacky. I think we should start concetrating more in the article itself. I find that some of its parts are very poorly written in terms of both structure and language. By the way I do find Kapodistrias quite notable. He trully played a very important role in European history during the early 19th century.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Two edit coflicts. Sorry Sthenel, Giorgos. Thank you for your comments, but the following answer is mainly addressed to Xenovatis. We just edited at the same time. Thanks.
Thanks for the heads up Giorgo. Actually I found a Fayum portrait of the 2nd century and used that instead as many others seem to be doing in the web. At least it ties with the icon to the right. As I said anyone who wants to make changes to the image is welcome as far as I am concerned and having read Kapo's article I will agree with Dr. K as well. Additionaly I substantially reworked the Hellenist, Byzantine and Ottoman sections in my attempt to cover the issue of broadness listed by the GA review. Which sections did you have in mind in terms of language and which structural problems do you identify? I just started on it so I am not very familirarXenovatis (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Xenovatis, sorry for the belated response but my time so far has been extremely limited. If you have a look to one of my earlier comments on the Myceneans you will get an idea of what I mean. The periodization of Greek History is often blurred (that goes especially for the geometric and archaic period), etiological myths are presented as quasi-historical facts, there is no consistent and clear focus on Greeks, important terms are used somewhat vaguely (e.g. nationality), the language is full of pseudo-translations (έκτυπα). Here's an indicative quick list of examples 1)The classical period of Greek civilization is the period following the Mycenaean (inaccurate) 2)These elements combined together do not amount to say (poorly written probably a pseudo translation of δεν πάει να πει ότι)3)Distinctions of nationality still existed in the [Byzantine] empire (anachronism and false, the editor probably refers to ethnic groups) 4)...were defined by the Ottomans as all members of the Greek Orthodox Church (poorly written) 5)However, some Greeks such as Alexander Ypsilantis, expected non-Greek populations such as the Moldavians and the Wallachians to rise for Greek independence because they were Greek Orthodox Christians. However, both the Moldavians and the Wallachians were cognizant of their non-Greek identities and refused to contribute (poorly written)6)...The roots of Greek success (probably a pseudo-translation) 7)As Thucydides observes that the name of Hellas spread from a valley in Thessaly to the Greek-speaking peoples after the formation of the text of Homer (the Panellenes of Il. 2.530 are the troops of Thessaly, contrasting with the Achaeans), not long before his own time (ungrammatical) 8)The Mycenaean proto-Greeks arrived in the area now referred to as 'Greece' (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) in the 16th century BC (inaccurate and poorly written) etc.... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
George thanks for taking the time to point these out. You seem to be very good at this. Please feel free to corect anything you consider to be wrong and also to improve on sub par language. See WP:BOLD as this will improve your self confidence on editing. I will be taking a look at the problem areas you pointed out and will read the article to try and look for similar. Thanks also for the translation too from Turkish on the Pontic Greek Genocide news piece. The article itself is currently deadlocked but hopefully we will one day reach a consensus and open it for editing again. Alot of new material has gathered that needs inserting into the article.Xenovatis (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As you very well remarked I seem to be very good at this. The actual truth is that I still struggle with pseudo-translastions my self and wouldn't call english my strong suit. I' m not the bold type either but I will take your advice when I find the time... Looking back at my previous comments I can already pinpoint several mistakes [concetrate in [sic!], have a look to [sic!] etc. etc.... quite embarassing ones I' m afraid :(] But what to heck... thanks again--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) No problem at all. I am always glad to talk to you Xenovatis, even at that rare occasion where we (mildly) disagree. This disagreement was more like a clarification anyway, but I am sorry if I came in a bit too strong, but I did this in a tongue in cheek fashion. Anyway past this subject I agree completely with your desire to include historical women. It is very commendable. I started doing this also in the Portal:Byzantine Empire. If you want to contribute anything about Byzantine women, or Byzantium in general, please do visit there. This invitation is extended to everyone else as well. As usual, it is a pleasure talking to you. All the best Xenovatis. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

A very nice portal. I will be visiting as currently I just finished a series of articles on Roman Greek scholars in the early Renaissance. To be frank though I am not really happy using the term Byzantine to describe the Roman empire, but needs must. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Xenovatis, the Fayoum portrait you just included is a very fine example of early encaustic art from the Er Rubayat cemetery and dates from the years 160-170 long before Hypatia was even born. Please take it out. It is completely unrelated--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can't take my word for it have a look in Susan Walker and Morris Bierbrier, Ancient faces : Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (London : Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by the British Museum Press, 1997). Have a look at the chapter about Er Rubayat portraits. It is so well known that it becomes embarassing to have it here as a portrait of Hypatia.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you because if you read my post above I mention this myself (2nd c. Fayum portrait) and I also used it in Hypa's page where I had made clear it is not her. Similarly in Agamemnon's page they use the Mycenaean golden mask. It looks more topical and less anachronistic and if anything it has a much higher chance of actually resembling her than all the other depictions. In any event, reverted. BTW wellcome to WP and you might want to write something (anything don't matter) in your user page (the red link in your sig) just so it isn't empty. Just pressing save will do it. Many happy edits!Xenovatis (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that : --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
A minor quibble. Why such emphasis on antiquity (5 figures) and figures whose 'ethnicity' might be questioned (Cyril and Methodius, Hypatia) or whose historicity is dubious (Homer)? I liked the previous gallery better, personally (though Cavafy is a nice addition). 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said above wanted to include some women and the only two I could think of were unfortunately both in the Hellenistic era, like Alex. So that's three. I also wanted to include one from each period in the text Myc, Cla, Hel, Rom. Ott, Mod, so that is say six. I would be happy for others to make ammendments and propose the following:
Pericles/Aristo/Plato, Alexander/Cleo/Hypatia, C&M/Anna Comnena, El Greco, Papanikolaou/Cavafy. Please indicate your preference and or draw a different list to discuss. I just read the Egyptian description in Hyp's page and although I think the Brit reference is geographical rather than ethnic I am happy to lose her if another woman can be proposed in her place. C&M I will insist since (1) their ethnicity being disputed is strictly fringe (see their article) and (2) I am not aware of anyone else from the ERE having had influence of similar magnitude on world culture as these two. So, any ideas on the above, esp Greek women to include? That said the Iranian people article has no gallery at all and is an FA article so we could avoid it alltogether. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just looked at all the other FA ethnic group articles and only the Egyptian has a gallery. All the others don't (Iranian people, Pashtun people. Toraja, Taiwanese aborigines) so that may well be something ot bear in mind. I removed the gellery completely per WP:BRD. Tell me what you think. Also if anyone wants to revert to the original picci it is Greeks.jpg.Xenovatis (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally agree with/don't mind the removal. Prominent Greeks have their respective pages on wiki, anyhow. I don't mind the earlier gallery either (Pericles, Alexander, El Greco, Kapodistrias). 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal. Most of ethnic group articles have galleries. At least the previous one or the first one would be better than this. - Sthenel (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 3rdAlcove and Sthenel that the original gallery with Alexander, Kapodistria etc. was a plus. The visual mosaic enriched the article. (How does it go again? A picture is worth.....) Dr.K. (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

OK, it's agreed that there will be an image and it shouldn't contain too many ancients or fictional people like Homer. I tried this one after a suggestion by George to include Callas.

File:Greeks7.JPG

Tell me what you think.Xenovatis (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't like this. It is not representative sample of the Greeks. - Sthenel (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. How many did you have in mind and whom? Could you make a different proposal? Thanks Sthenele, looking forward to reading your ideas.Xenovatis (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Αχ αυτοί οι Έλληνες... πουθενά δε χωράνε οι άτιμοι!!!! Ι think that a representative sample of Greeks is ipso facto a Chimaera. They 've been around far too long to be so conveniently squeezed in 8 miniscule thumbnail photos. They may start biting each other... Perhaps we should do away with the whole gallery after all - much to the dismay of many nice people in here. Sorry guys, please μην αρχίσετε να με βαράτε που το ξεστόμισα!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
...on second thought, we can always expand it to bombastic proportions!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
While we are at it guys would anyone be interested in doing some more work on the article itself? Giorgos made some good suggestions on language and facts which I'll be correcting.We should have a section on identiy where the origins and modern v. ancient debate will go, another section on current demographics (how many where etc) perhaps to include the diaspora in that, a section under culture with (1) art, (2) science. Any more suggestions? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right, I did some minor language changes but there's still a lot and I actually disagree with many statements. I' m going to point them out and wait for comments
1)Homer's Trojan War is, indeed, a conflict among Greeks: the Trojans speak Greek (although modern historians believe they were more likely an Anatolian people, based mostly on later translations of the story by late writers), bear Greek names, and worship the Greek gods; and Priam is descended from Zeus. I'm a bit confused here, is this supposed to reflect a homeric opinion about Trojans or is it stated as a "historical" fact? The previous wording spoke about "most modern historians" but I erased "most". Which historians suggest that ancient Trojans where Greek?
2) The Carians are the only people Homer considers barbarophonoi what does this mean? Why is it included?
3) The Hellenistic period [...] lasted untill the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 30 BC. For some purposes the period is extended for a further three and a half centuries, to the move by Constantine the Great of his capital to Constantinople. This is probably a reference to the legacy of hellenistic culture but the wording is (to say the least) a bit simplistic. Again it is confusing and the phrase "for some purposes" is a bit funny. What is the exact quotation from Encycolpedia Britannica?
4) That age saw a civic move of the Greeks into larger cities and an abandonment of the city-state model of the past. What is the meaning of "civic move" in this context? Indeed, in hellenistic times civic life changed a lot, but city-states did not actually vanish. The situation was much more complex. If the emergence of large cities like Alexandria is what is implied here, than the wording is again very confusing.
5) This lead to a strong desire among Greeks to organize the transmission of paideia to the next generation and literacy among the Greek population, already high by the standards of their contemporaries, rose Appart from the obvious grammatical mistake (lead-led) the whole phrase seems a bit awkward in the context of this paragraph. It is probably a direct quotation incorporated somewhat clumsily in the paragraph.
6) Chief among them was Christianity a religion profoundly shaped by the Hellenistic Greeks who formed the majority of the Early Church and provided most of the Greek Fathers and which in turn had a singular impact on their civilization Again, the term hellenistic is used in vague manner. Christianity appeared during the Roman Period.
I will stop here, but there's a lot more. I think that editing only language mistakes won't do the trick.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I figured out the last point (no 6). It must be a reference to the εξ Ελλήνων or ελληνιστές (hellenist = Greek not Hellenistic) christians in contrast to the εξ Ιουδαίων christians. Of course this has nothing to do with hellenistic Greeks but to the different origins of the christian followers in the early church--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 Fixed it. Deleted the whole nationalist reference to Trojans as Greeks.
  • 2 Ditto
  • 3 Hellenistic Age in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 30 BC. For some purposes the period is extended for a further three and a half centuries, to the move by Constantine the Great of his capital to Constantinople (Byzantium) in AD 330.
  • 4 Removed awkward wording, qualified statement
  • 5 I am still looking into that. It is indeed a paraphrase of a direct quote. I will either rephrase or delete it. Actually see below,you should do it to get the hang of it!
  • 6 Moved to Roman period, qualified
Thanks! I really appreciate your taking the time to do this as it really helps improve the article. Also like others said be BOLD and make the changes yourself. For example No.5 why don't you resolve this yourself (either delete or rephrase). That way the people interested in that particular section will be drawn and will either agree or you will have a discussion. In any case it is much better for drawing people in than just writting in the talk page. See WP:BOLD and WP:BRDXenovatis (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
George, the first one is nationalist distortion (Trojans were not Greeks) and you did well to correct it. FutPerf also removed a similar nationalist claim about the Pelasgians. The last three were mina and I am glad you caught and corrected them. Please be more bold and edit and change anything you see as wrong and mistaken. Also there are two or three sections that contain no citations at all so it would be usefull for us to look into these as well as in-line citations are necessary for GA status.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I won't do anything about the article, it was at least an article with a good structure but now it looks disgusting, which makes me be at a loss. That's why limited edits are required. - Sthenel (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sthenel why does it look disgusting? I tried to clear up the sections and put them all under the relevant subheadings so it is better structured (see Pashtun people, an FA article). If however you feel so strongly about it please revert as required, per WP:BRD. I am happy we have got a discussion going here and would be very glad to hear your opinion on structuring in particular. My sole purpose here is to help get this article to GA and hopefully if that is achieved to FA. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes and Requests

  • Does anyone know where that banner is located as I haven't been able to find it and if it can be improved since it looks a bit ungainly as it is? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Found it, there is a link at the bottom right hand corner of the template.Xenovatis (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Language of Athens or the Peloponnese?

Dear Xenovatis and Dexippus. Modern day Demotiki is neither Athenian nor Peloponnesian. It is true that the original demotiki is an adaptation of the Peloponnesian dialect, as it was spoken in the 19th century. This became the basis for Triantafyllidis when he wrote his amazing Γραμματική in the late '30s. He infused the original peloponnesian dialect with many necessary loanwords from Katharevousa. Therefore what we now call Dimotiki is a mixture and not the original peloponnesian dialect (linguists now always refer to Κοινή Νεοελληνική which is the product of this amalgamation to avoid confusion).--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) ...and by the way, Armenian is considered the closest indoeuropean relative of Greek--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the Armenian Greek relationship and always thought it quite fascinating. As for the rest, that's fine by me. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I just thought of this. Since you are in the Arts it would be really cool if you could take a look in the Art section and improve it with your knowledge. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would very much like to help, but my hands are full for the time being. I am going to wait till your editing is more or less finalised and then I' ll come back to you with proposals and/or changes.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

This article was proposed on the WP:GAN page. It will take several weeks for the review to take place so there is plenty of time to improve on it still.Xenovatis (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing Seann Gabb and rewriting a paragraph.

I am removing the link about Seann Gabb for 2 reasons.

a)He is not a historian but rather a controversial character of UK.
b)He is highly biased and against the Greeks in a highly racist (and :insulting) way.

He is stating so in his site! http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc148.htm

“And for all my impassioned Hellenism, I had come to despise the modern Greeks; a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles, and more recently about the Turkish revenge for what they did to the minority in Cyprus, disgusted me. They have turned Athens into a sewer, and seem to derive much of their national income from frauds on the European Union. In London, even the kebab shops are better when run by Turks.”

Is the above passage enough? Is the above writing of a “neutral source”?
I don’t believe that anyone has any objection of deleting him.

As for the passage:

“Several authors in the Western World and Turkey contest these findings and consider that Greeks today are not culturally or ethnically related to the Greeks of Antiquity”

I am also rewriting it to

Some authors have considered that Greeks of today are not culturally or ethnically related to the Greeks of Antiquity.

And the reason is because there aren’t “several authors” but more properly “some authors”. (Since word “several” means “many” and can be misleading)
We can not say that they “contest these findings” since it is impossible for Alfred Rozenberg in the 1930 to “contest these findings” when those findings (the genetic researches) were published 70 years after his work. As for Seann Gabb I couldn’t find anything suggesting that he even knows anything about genetic researches. As I have said above he is biased and highly controversial. (See above.) As for the phrase “Western World and Turkey” it should stay only if is properly cited. There isn’t however any link to suggest that there are authors (or historians) from Turkey who have suggested anything about the Greek populations.
Seleukosa (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Seleukosa. Obviously to include this guy was a mistake. It seems that he had a bad souvlaki experience in Athens and now he is taking it out on the whole nation. Hardly the attributes of a WP:RS. Dr.K. (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the rewording and thank you for pointing it out. I will also, as per your suggestion, return a source for Turkey I had placed initially (which was removed by another editor). As for Gabb there are no sources accusing him of being racist so as far as WP is concerned he isn't, just check his article Sean Gabb. THat means he is not an extremist source and can be used in the article to present an alternative POV in the issue. The issue is controversial and for the article to pass GAN and later FA it must be addressed with the other side's POV as well. There are allready antihelle... good faith editors complaining that the article assumes Greeks today are related with the ancients. Also please take a look at the rest of the article to see if you can spot other areas needing rewording, expansion, sources etcXenovatis (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The link about Turkey is accepted. Thank you Xenovatis.
As for Gabb he is highly controversial and definitely biased against the Greeks. The article about him in Wikipedia lacks basic facts about him. What has he studied? Were? What's his profession? There is almost nothing there about him.
As for other scholars/historians) beside 19th century racist views and modern political motivated_ I personally don’t know anyone who has question the origin of modern Greeks. Is there any neutral one? Can’t we find a more neutral source? We shouldn’t use controversial or racist views?
Seleukosa (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks/Archive_3&oldid=1089775934"