Talk:Greeks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Main Photo of famous Greeks

you have searched many other ethnicity on wikipedia, and they have massive photo's of their famous people with a dozen or so. Why is ours so small? Especially when we have had many reputable people throughout history and the one's that are on there aren't even the most of it. May I modify this photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.164.134 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is, when the article about the italians, for example, will be full with all roman leaders and military leaders? Do you see something strange in this? You should make two different articles about the ancient and the modern greeks. --92.247.238.43 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be difficult considering that there is no widely accepted point in time where the ancient Greeks stop being ancient Greeks and become modern Greeks.--Ptolion (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Slavophones

I think Slavophones must be considered as part of Macedonians (Greeks). It is a subgroup of Macedonians and not a subgroup of Greeks in general. They can't be confused with Pomaks which are also slavophones. Macedonians may have several subgroups, such as Slavophones, Chalkidikiotes, Chassiotes, Thassians, Eastern Macedonians, Meglenites, Sourds, Olympians, Arvanitovlachs and Voians (from Voio province). They have some differences between them but they have a lot in common. They are the Macedonians.Chrusts 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus' Population

Check the demography in Cyprus. In the latest census for 2006 there were 660 000 Greek-Cypriots and another 37 000 mainland Greeks living on the island. Somebody update this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sea section: Add content about Greek explorers

Although Greece isnt as famous as Spain and Portugal as far as exploration goes, but Greece did have some notable explorers that can be mentioned in this section, some of which were the earliest european explorers that went as far away as Iceland! Pytheas, Scylax of Caryanda, and even Juan De Fuca (Ioannis Fokas) could be mentioned, even though he sailed and served Spain. I think that would fit nicely. Just an idea. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I had never heard of Fuca, I will insert it immediately.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Prove it.

Future, you are not above WP:RS. All views have to be based on reliable and verifiable (secondary) sources. Citing one tertiary source is not good enough. You have to prove your arguments like everyone else. Stop using excuses and stop making useless insults just because you have zero physical proof to substantiate your standpoints.

This is not the behavior of a disinterested administrator: "As long as I'm an editor here, Greek-related articles will never again be defiled by your disinformation campaigns."

Prove your case Future and stop wasting time. Deucalionite (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I am no longer willing to treat you as a good-faith, legitimate contributor on matters of Greek pre-history, ever again. You have been trying to insert your fringe pseudo-scholarship in these articles for years. You have lied, you have used sockpuppets, you have distorted sources, all the time. Enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks will not help you this time Future. The fact that I've made thousands of positive contributions to Wikipedia should be ample enough proof of my legitimacy as an editor. You can study my checkered history until your eyes bleed, but this discussion is about the Greeks, not about me. Stay focused.

WP:RS = Prove it. You are not above the law Future just because you are an administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh-hem. What concrete data do you have that proves the existence of an Indo-European break(s) in the physical evidence? Or are you going to call every archaeologist and scholar a "fringe theorist" just because they use critical thinking skills to question the Indo-European Theory on the grounds that linguistic relatedness does not always equate to demographic or cultural relatedness?

Hmmm. Just in case I get no response from you, please understand that stigmatizing me for whatever I've done in the past accomplishes nothing. In fact, it just makes extant problems worse. Make no mistake Future. Your recent behavior has disappointed a lot of users. However, I've never lost faith in you regardless if you've lost faith in me years ago. So, let's forget the past and move on towards making this article better. What do you say? Friends? :) Deucalionite (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I won't let you anywhere near Greek prehistory again, as long as I can prevent it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My friend, you don't own this article and you don't own Greek prehistory (no one does). Moreover, you can't prevent editors from improving articles only because you disagree with them. I haven't violated any policies, including WP:RS, and all you're doing is utilizing bureaucratic excuses to avoid engaging in a debate with me. Get off your high horse and prove your case. I asked you some serious questions and I am still waiting for answers. No offense, but what good are you as a "disinterested administrator" if all you're doing is being blindly obstinate while engaging in name-calling and being haughtily self-righteous? Come on Future. I am not playing your silly game of "Admins and Vandals", so get with the program and start debating. Deucalionite (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not acting as an admin here. If I could do that, I'd have blocked you by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Knowing you, I doubt that. But if that's really the case, then let's debate for God's sake. What will it take for you to have a civil and intelligent discussion with me? Deucalionite (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deucalionite, why re file you removed a sourced statement from a leading encyclopedia that also happens to be academic consencus? Fringe opinionis by nutters like Poulianos and Liakopoulos do not, and I can't stress that enough, on the whole advance what I know to be our shared goal, i.e. the domination of this arm of the Milky Way by the hairy and pom-pom wearing Space Tsoliades of the Fatherland. SYNTONISOU. If you want to help with this article help me get the refs in approved wiki format. This is a necessary first step in the Evil Master Plan (henceforth EMP for short) which will get this article to front page status. We have enough trouble from xenoi without Greeks making a mess of it as well.Xenovatis (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ξύπνα φίλε μου! Though encyclopedias are helpful, WP:RS prefers facts from secondary sources. Also, the references I added include reliable scholars like Dietrich, Polome, Runnels, and Murray. These authors have absolutely nothing to do with Poulianos or with Liakopoulos. Come on. Deucalionite (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true. WP is supposed to reflect consensus and as per WP:UNDUE fringe opinions shouldn't be given undue weight. In a short precis like the genetics subsection is anyway this would happen by default. If you wish to present these facts go the Greek genetics page or create it if it doesn't exist. Even there though they can only be given as much play as their relative acceptance in the academic community implies, i.e. no more than a sentence in the whole article.--Xenovatis (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the references I cited are not "fringe opinions". So, I don't see how this discussion can possibly affect WP:UNDUE when things involving WP:RS have yet to be resolved. Also, I only wrote one sentence regarding the "emergence" of the Greeks so I think you need to review a few things first before telling me to go contribute at the "Greek genetics page". Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Look re Deuci if the gist of it is that you don't accept the IE theory then you have to admit it is fringe. I have had this argument with anti-IE supporters hundreds of times in forums and it really doesn't lead anywhere. I don't want to get into a fight here. Think hard and try to do something constructive.Xenovatis (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shows what you know. The IE theory makes sense from a linguistic standpoint since the theory itself was originally formulated by linguists. Archaeological evidence was oftentimes made to fit with linguistic models instead of the other way around. It's no wonder the "Out of India Theory" was complete bunk before it was replaced by Gimbutas's "Kurgan Theory". The references I provided contain IE scholars, historians, and archaeologists who generally acknowledge the fact that there is no significant cultural break in the archaeological record to substantiate a massive "Indo-European invasion" of Greece.

Don't even bother assuming that I vehemently support Colin Renfrew since his "Out of Anatolia" theory is baseless due to recent research having discovered that Neolithic culture in mainland Greece contains a complex Mesolithic substratum. At the end of the day, your "forum experience" involving "anti-IE theorists" means nothing. Physical proof is more than just the sum of "kurgans" one finds in Europe. Open your eyes, analyze my references, and then maybe you can talk about what it really means to be "boldly constructive". Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to reconcile your views with academic orthodoxy? Put some water in your wine so to speak so that the sources you supplied can be used in the article? Hopefully we can reach a compromise without further animus. It would help if you could provide the citations and quote the refs you have in mind. I hope we can resolve this amicably file.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop assuming that this discussion is about "my views". The references I provided involve a series of real scholars who possess strong assessments that could either refine or redefine whatever it is constitutes as "academic orthodoxy" (i.e. linguistic authority). If you want to seriously discuss things, then first read my edits before requesting that I ruminate on reconciliation. If you prefer, you can contact me via email. Deucalionite (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Added new section cuisine

Thought that might be interesting. If anyone disagrees I am not married to it so let's discuss.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I think it is a nice idea to have the cuisine added into the article- it already suffers from 129,760 bytes! Also I find it quite annoying that there was no mention of Anatolian influences e.g. baklava and many mezes (to name but a few) and it basically suggests that Ottoman food is influenced by the Ancient Greeks which is quite insulting to history in its self. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article mentions that greek cuisine was influenced by many of the people that occupied greece. I suppose it should be reworded to include Anatolia which wouldn't be obvious to a foreigner to be part of historic greek territory. I will look into that. BTW where does it say that ottoman food was influenced by greeks?--Xenovatis (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He probably misread the passage about "continued trends" under the Roman and Ottoman empires as somehow implying that the Ottomans were "influenced by the Ancients". A short (the article is getting a bit big) mention of specific foreign influences on G. cuisine would be nice, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Digenis claim

Btw, there's a claim regarding Digenis Akritas in the section: is that in the source or an original idea? Know who added it? 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, the source only mentions that his father was Syrian.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the case in point phrasing. Do you think that is enough or would it need removing?--Xenovatis (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting but probably still WP:OR. Sorry for being so nitpicky about things I do notice but since you're going for FA... 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will remove it. WRT race in byzantium i found another ref here that says it wasn't an issue. Tell me what you think. I am taking this discussion on the article's talk if it's allright.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding the sources also mention that his name derives from the fact that he was of mixed parentage. But that is not what you meant I think. Correct?--Xenovatis (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not about the reason for being named Digenis but rather the original (that is if it's not mentioned in the cited sources) interpretation of the specific example. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! I removed the or passage and replaced with a cited one on race in byzantium.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

surnames

I found the section on surnames and suffixes particularly interesting, and don't see the reason for its removal. What do others think? --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is all ineresting. The problem is that the article is currenly 120 bytes which makes it hard to read and work on. In addition FA articles tend to be between 35-55 so it is now double the ideal size. The prose is sub-par and so is the lead. We need to (1) trim it down and (2) work on the prose and finaly make the lead as a summary after it's all done. There are things mentioned two or three times so there is scope for condensing. I'll remove the cuisine section as well and place it in the main article untill the article is brought to a manageable size. In particular the sections Classical, Eastern Roman, Sea and Demographics seem to me to be too large. --Xenovatis (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yes good points. You do excellent work, so carry on by all means. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Kala Christougena!--Xenovatis (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeks Are Not Related To Italians

Greeks are not related to Italian people. Yes it is true that 2,000 years ago southern Italy was colonised by the ancient Greek people true. But before then, Italic tribes lived in southern Italy. Also when Rome conquered southern Italy, Greek cities fell into decline as Roman colonists moved in. Southern Italy then fell to Germanic raids after the fall of the Roman empire. The Byzantine Greeks came in later, only to lose Sicily to the Arabs in which the Normans Vikings ousted 160 years of Arab rule in Sicily. Later Germanic, French, Spanish kingdoms would be established in southern Italy. Albanian (Arbereshe) and Croatian migrants in the Middle Ages settled parts of southern Italy escaping from the Ottomans, where they continued to live in distinct and seperate communities.

Genetic studies show that one third of Sicilians have Greek DNA, and Greek DNA averages 15 percent in the south. While Sicilians can be stated as close to Greeks, mainland Italians are not. They are predominantly a Roman/Italic people; not Greek. Northern Italy especially barely saw Greek presence (save Genova, and Venice) but saw Celtic, Etruscan and Roman domination. Italians in all reality are closer to their Latin neighbours, the French people, Spanish people and Portuguese people, and even Romanian people. To say that Italians are related to Greeks is like saying that the southern France and Spanish are just because of very brief Greek colonisation.

Here is the proof from DNA genetic studies of Europe: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/geneticmapofeurope.jpg Greeks are related to Bulgarians, some Macedonians and Romanians: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.207.146 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if I happen to stop you mid-rant but the article does not in fact mention that the Greeks are in any way shape or form related to Italians except in the sense of speaking an indoeuropean language.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, refer to the CIA World Factbook. Southern Italians have nearly the same exact DNA as Greeks. Again, this is according to the Central Intelligence Agency. That is because Southern Italians are Greek. Biologically that is. --Nikoz78 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

User:pmanderson was kind enough to offer a peer-review of the article. Sufficeth to say there is still room for improvement. A lot.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Xenovati, thanks for contacting me about the Greeks article. There is certainly lots of good material in the article, but overall it suffers deeply from presentism (projecting today's categories back into the past), essentialism (considering that there is a clear, hard-edged definition of Greekness), boosterism/chauvinism, and tendentiousness (around the notion of continuity). The 'Identity' and 'Modern and ancient' sections begin to address these questions but aren't very good, very complete, or very well integrated into the rest of the article.

In the 'Modern' section, we read about the existence of modern ethnic Greeks with Vlach, Arvanitic, and Slavic backgrounds (which is all true), but there is no discussion of how some came to have Greek ethnic identification and others did not, nor of the subtleties of the relationships between these groups. Loring Danforth's work is very interesting here, as is Anastasia Karakasidou's (she is mentioned in the bibliography, but not cited in the body of the article).

There are various sections which already have their own articles and really don't belong here except in a much more concise way, such as 'Polyonymy' (a ridiculous choice of word, by the way). The article often veers off into discussing the Greek state or the Greek language in ways that aren't directly relevant to "the Greeks".

As a matter of editing, it has many passages which sound like (Greek) elementary school textbooks, neatly dividing history into periods ("...was the next period of Greek civilization..."). Others are simply poor English: "Several notable works have been originally written in Greek....". Others use Whiggish, non-NPOV language like "liberation".

There is no discussion of the various efforts over the years to define or redefine Greekness, except for Plethon. What about the period just before the Greek War of Independence, when there were several conflicting notions? What about Paparrigopoulos's revival of Byzantine culture and promotion of Greek continuity? What about Metaxas's repression of non-Greek languages in Greece?

Finally, the article as a whole is not well organized. It needs a lot of work. --macrakis (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I appreciate this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WatchlistΙt would seem the article merits a complete rewrite rather than just improvements. What would you suggest as a possible structure, wrt history for instance if not periods then what? The structure was modelled on other good ethnic groups articles and follows a similar patern but I would appreciate some new ideas. Wrt to identity if discussion of identity were to be expanded then the portions dealing with hisotrical events, which are thin enough as it is, would have to be further shrunk in size. Again that is doable but I am worried it might be seen as a defect if major historical events, which are in any case only mentioned briefly are ommited. The question is does this article hope to be about the Greeks, or about their identity. Wrt continuity, when do you think the article should start? eg classical, hellenistic, roman, ottoman etc Finally is boosterism a matter of wording or content or both? What would you like to see change in terms of content? Looking forward to hear your reply. Thanks. --Xenovatis (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The theme of continuity is certainly an interesting one -- and probably the most difficult and contentious. So rather than making it the leitmotif of the article, I would treat it as a discrete topic.

It may make sense to make Greek identity a separate article, focussing on the *self-defined* notions of Greekness during different periods (and not on genetics which is largely irrelevant, and is currently 80% of the article). There are lots of sources for each period, e.g. Malkin (ed.) Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. It is important to use solid, modern secondary sources, and not try to interpret (e.g.) Isocrates at face value -- he was after all a rhetor who made arguments in service of a particular goal. It is also important to keep in mind that at all periods there have been disagreements or disputes about ethnic boundaries (cf. the discussions in Malkin about Epirus and Macedonia).

For the Byzantines, Plethon needs to be mentioned, but let's not forget that he was hardly mainstream (he was accused of heresy!); the Byzantine Greeks article has some good material.

The Ottoman Greeks article is very stub-like for now, and needs work.

Where is the Modern Greeks article? Either this article (Greeks) should be that article, or we need a separate one, in which case the Greeks article can be a fairly short overview and orientation.

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of grand celebratory article where Homer, Aristotle, Justinian, St. Cyril, John Scylitzes, El Greco, Kapodistrias, and Mikis Theodorakis all rub shoulders in a celebration of Hellenism, but frankly I don't see how it can be a serious article. --macrakis (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On that last point, could you elaborate?--Xenovatis (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And could you suggest a starting point for the article? How would you ideally see the article? I am also surprised you mentioned genetics since the relevant section was entirely removed and the word is absent from the article.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis is referring to the (exported) sections in Greek identity. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re organization, I don't think the structure of the subheads needs much changing, but the content needs to conform more to the headings. So for example, Greek identity in the classical period is covered (not very well, and without good sources) in the History section, but then there's a separate 'Identity' section which covers 'Modern and ancient'. The section on 'Demographics' overlaps with the section on 'Diaspora'/'Modern'. The section on the 'Sea' seems misplaced; perhaps there needs to be a more general section on commerce?

Another comment. The sources used seem of variable quality and pertinence. And sometimes the citations are incomplete. Examples:

• Thee Polomé citation (currently #35) refers to a festschrift containing multiple articles. Which one, and what page, supports the radical claim that "the proto-Greeks were present there since Paleolithic times"?

• Another reference for the same claim is a summary of some "preliminary results" of some archaeological work in 1973-74. If a definitive, non-preliminary report has been published in some reputable journal since then, it should be cited; if not, this is not a good source.

• For Greek names, there's a reference to The Writer's Digest Character Naming Sourcebook, a guide for choosing character names in fiction; that doesn't seem like a solid source for Greek naming practices.

• Too many notes are to the Britannica. The Britannica is usually competent, but is a tertiary source. The Columbia Encyclopedia is a single-volume encyclopedia and should only be used for basic facts, if at all. Solid, modern secondary sources are better in general.

Citations and notes should be unified.

It is silly to include the Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and the Economist Pocket World in the References section.

The external links all belong in more specialized articles.

I hope this has been helpful. --macrakis (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section

Deucalionite, you say in your edit summary that there is a consensus on the Talk page that the genetics information belongs in this article. As far as I can tell the consensus is in the other direction, with FutPerf, Xenovatis, 3rdAlcove, and me (and I would guess PMAnderson) all disagreeing with you. Please don't edit against this consensus, or misrepresent the consensus in your edit summaries. --macrakis (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? I recall a big useless debate regarding the "problems" with genetic Greekness where a handful of editors ended up complaining about two little paragraphs. However, three editors (myself, Hxseek, and one IP-user) agreed to keep the section. Yannismarou, Dr. K, and PMAnderson had their respective gripes, but I don't recall their ever wanting to remove the section. Besides, a lot of articles that discuss ethnic groups incorporate genetic studies. Deucalionite (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to put this on the record, I'm not a big friend of genetics sections in general, and I'm confident this one is at least as problematic as most others, but if we are going to have one, I prefer it here than in yet another factored-out subarticle. Pushing problematic content into subarticles is usually not a very helpful approach, and the current attempt at creating a Greek identity one doesn't particularly convince me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. We actually agree on something Future. Let's see: Jews, Spanish people, Serbs, Germanic peoples all have genetic sections some of which are very long. Since my memory is fuzzy (New Years' hangover), I decided to re-check the "debate" about genetic Greekness. As far as I can tell, there was a consensus to have the section removed, but there was also a consensus to keep it. I think Macrakis was right about Yannismarou, Dr. K, and PMAnderson wanting to remove the section. However, I did notice that instead of an "actionable consensus", a degree of (sarcastic) apathy settled among most users wanting to remove the section since the debate was getting very repetitive. Regardless of who supported which consensus, the article isn't going against the grain.

I'm too bashed right now to give a shit, but I agree that we should keep the debate about genetic Greekness here instead of elsewhere. Deucalionite (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Toss the genetics section?? That was discussed earlier and there was a consensus to keep it. The section isnt the most important part of the Greek identity in my opinion, but it is still relevant and notable. Not to mention that many articles dealing with ethnic groups have a genetics section, and some might find the article lacking and not comprehensive if it doesnt have such a section. They are targets for vandalism sometimes, but thats true for all ethnic group articles. Think, If its omitted, some kid might try to "help" by re-creating it using Arnaiz-Villena's debunked pseudo-science. I know his work has been incorporated in this article before!

In a context where Fallmerayer's findings, Afro-centrism, the white supremacist Aryans-built-Ancient-Greece-and-then-moved theory, and the findings of "scholars" like Arnaiz-Villena are misinforming many out there, it isnt much to ask to have a paragraph dedicated to the findings of reputable scientists using modern genetics so readers can know where Greeks come from and about their identity in a biological sense as well. If it isnt obvious, I still opt to keep the section. Anon134 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

These are fair points. I have encountered many, otherwise educated people, who espouse the white nordic Greeks myth. Maybe if the material in the genetics section of Greek identity could be condensed to one paragraph? Hint, hint:)--Xenovatis (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mycenaean timeline

I think there is a serious debate on the exact time of the arrival of the Proto-Greeks that is not very well presented in the article, I think that many also prefer the 17th century BC and it should be noted that some are trying to use archaeological proofs while others linguistic. For example, Mylonas (Grave Circle B Mycanae, Greek Archaelogical Service, Athens 1973) dating the graves in Mycanae in the Middle Helladic era, placed the arrival around the 2nd millenia, William Wyatt (The Indoeuropeanization of Greece, 1970) judging from the first appearence of chariots in modern Greece in around 1600 BC and connecting it with Indoeuropean arrival reckons that date. Robert Drews (The coming of Greeks), being a bit radical on his theories of how Proto-Greeks arrived also prefers 1600 BC. But these are judging mainly from archaeology, Garcia-Ramon (Les Origines postmyceniennes) dates the partition between north and south mycaenean greek dialects several centuries prior to 1200, thus chooses Middle Helladic era, etc, etc I think it should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way covering more opinions. Kάπνισμα 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the "teach the controversy" mindset. just because many people say many things, it does not mean they are all accepted or right. At the moment, there is no evidence for any discontinuity after 2300 BC and even the EHII-EHIII transitionis not attested everywhere in the same way. --5telios (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic identification

As far as I can tell, there is no "objective" definition of ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is a matter of perception: how people identify themselves or how they are identified by others.

Ethnic identification is moderately easy to determine for modern people (you ask them, you ask their neighbors, etc.), though there are always complications (the same person may call himself different things in different contexts, he may not call himself the same thing that his neighbors call him, etc.). It is harder to determine for the historical past, where we have written documents, since documents represent a small, non-random selection of people and may reflect an ideal rather than a reality, etc. And with both the historical and the epic (oral-transmission) past, there is a serious problem of selective transmission, where those documents/traditions which fit later generations' perceptions are preserved and those which do not are forgotten or even suppressed.

Finally, it is pretty much impossible to know how people perceived themselves or others in prehistory. We can do archaeology and infer that people with similar material cultures (Minyan ware) are members of a group, and those who have different material cultures are members of different groups, but that is hazardous in multiple ways. We can trace the evolution of languages and infer that those who spoke similar languages were members of the same group, etc., but again that is hazardous. We can perform genetic studies and infer that people who are biologically related are members of a group, etc., but again that is hazardous. If, for example, we were to look at the material culture, language, and genetics of poor white people in rural Texas and of rich white people in Boston, we would probably find radical differences in material culture, some difference in language, and some difference in genetics, though in US culture, they are considered part of the same ethnic group. Conversely, if we looked at the material culture, language, and genetics of a Muslim and a Christian in Lebanon or a Hutu and a Tutsi in Rwanda, we might find very small differences. And of course genetics, language, and material culture often do not align at all.

So it does not seem useful to project the category "Greek" back beyond the period where we have good evidence of ethnic identification, especially since different kinds of evidence (archaeology, linguistics, genetics) may not be concordant. --macrakis (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What or rather when would you suggest? What is the most common definition of Greek?--Xenovatis (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Greek" clearly has different meanings at different periods. I believe I already suggested above that each period's definition be treated separately. The modern definition of Greeks today includes not just common current culture and language, but also the notion of shared ancestry. Reporting on this notion is NPOV and important to the article. Taking this notion as axiomatic is unhistorical POV. --macrakis (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but the earlier periods should be discussed wrt the inherited culture of people who did identify as Greeks (how exactly that came to be, subsumed other identities and to what extent it did so is a separate matter that should be discussed in the article), e.g. language, "Minoan-Mycenaean religion" etc (though your second paragraph seems to imply that we should omit every period bar the modern; of course, even in separate articles, the matter of "ethnic identity" would need to be discussed). 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we actually agree that each period's definition of Greekness is worth discussing separately. What my second paragraph suggests is that it is much harder to determine the definition when we have less evidence. And we should be careful about imputing 'ethnic identity' to people who may or may not have had that notion at all. For instance, even as recently as a century ago, before the 'Macedonian Struggle', it is not at all clear that the Christian peasants of Macedonia had anything like the modern notion of ethnic group; whether they spoke Slavic or Greek or Romance, their first 'identity' was as Christians. It was outsiders including agents of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania as well as outside travellers and scholars, who defined mother-tongue as the primordial definer of ethnicity. --macrakis (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the culture part. While Greek ethnic identity did not in fact persist but rather was replaced by the Roman one (Rhmoaioi) and Hellene came to mean pagan, an ethno-cultural (Levy) or ethno-religious (Smith) entity did in fact persist. Given however that there are dissenting opinions it would be a good idea if they were backed up by some sort of relevant literature, preferably in a separate page on the talk root so we can have them all in one place and that they won't inhibit dialogue. The article should tread a fine line so that it falls prey to neither Greek nationalism (national persistence) nor Western appropriationism (cultural discontinuity).--Xenovatis (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For a long time, there was clearly an elite, literate in Greek, which thought of itself as the cultural or intellectual heir of the (Greek) fathers of the Church, or of the Ancients, or of the (Greek-speaking) Roman Empire (but not necessarily all three!), and in fact functioned in some ways as a community. Similarly, in the West, there was an elite, literate in Latin, which thought of itself as the cultural or intellectual heir of the (Latin) fathers of the Church, or of the Ancients, or of the (Latin-speaking) Roman Empire (and no, this did not start with the Renaissance), and in fact functioned in some ways as a community. Should we identify these groups as the Greek and the Latin ethnic groups? And what about the non-elites?

Similar issues arise in other periods. How do we know whether a person whose home language is Romance (Vlach) but whose commercial language is Greek identified as Vlach or Greek? (My guess is that the question simply isn't useful or even meaningful.) Today, all Greek citizens of Vlach origin consider themselves perfectly Greek, but how are we to determine that for the 16th century? --macrakis (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak references

Two of the source references in this article are problematic:

Polomé, Edgar C. (1991). Perspectives on Indo-European language, culture, and religion: studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Washington, D.C: Institute for the Study of Man. p. 29. ISBN 0-941694-37-2.

This is a festschrift for Polomé, not a book by Polomé, so it is important to include the name of the author and the name of the article within it. And I'd be curious to know what exactly it says.

Catling, H.W. "Archaeology in Greece, 1973-74". Archaeological Reports (20): 3-41. "Lake Copais area. Th. Spyropoulos reports preliminary results of his research into the prehistoric settlement of the Copaic basin".

This is being presented as a source for the assertion that "proto-Greeks were present there since Paleolithic times". But the document simply says: "...the west slopes of Mt. Ptoon, occupied continuously from Palaeolithic, through Neolithic to Middle Helladic times...". But it does not say that they were continuously occupied by proto-Greeks. Leaving aside the (serious) problem of how you determine ethnic identity from material culture, lots of places have been continuously occupied by a succession of different peoples. So I am removing this note. --macrakis (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are not supported. The previous version (as far as the linguistic proto-Greeks are concerned, at least; "ethnic identity", especially for this period, is another matter) was better, perhaps not perfect but in accordance with mainstream, academic opinion. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we go with the most commonly accepted version as it is spelled out in Britannica, 1600bc, proto-greek speakers came, mixed with locals, produced mycenaeans, end of story. This issue has allready been commented on, twice and negatively so, in peer-reviews and needs to close if the article is to progress. Deucalionite your insistence is hurting not helping the article. Consider this carefully.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. My insistence has only galvanized efforts towards improving the article by flushing out hard debates on this discussion page. You're welcome.

I am not surprised that Macrakis and 3rdAlcove have doubts about my sources. Beginning with Polome, just because his work is technically a festschrift, doesn't mean that we should close our eyes to the fact that there is barely any proof to substantiate a proto-Greek invasion of Greece. As for Catling, Macrakis needs to realize that this particular archaeological source from the 1970s complements the Runnels citation in which the beginnings of Greek civilization (ethnic or otherwise) date as far back as the Neolithic. Assuming that a succession of different peoples can contribute to occupational continuity would first require proof of migration(s). And since there is no evidence of a proto-Greek migration, then such an argument (or excuse technically) is largely baseless. Of course, 3rdAlcove's insistence towards re-instating the previous version of the section doesn't help since its contents discuss more than just the Mycenaean language. Despite what Britannica says (as if a tertiary source knows everything), science is begrudgingly acknowledging the so-called "autocthonous model" (for what it's worth) since too many "migration theories" have been perpetuated without sufficient evidence. Overall, none of the references I submitted are weak since I have yet to see proof of a proto-Greek migration from anyone. Deucalionite (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are conflating linguistic change with mass population movements and assuming that archaeologists can "see" linguistic change in an illiterate community.

As for Polomé, I simply said that since it is a festschrift, it is simply incorrect to attribute any statement in the article to Polomé himself, as you did earlier in this discussion. You will note that I did not remove the reference.

About Catling, it simply does not say what you want it to. It just talks about continuity of occupation. --macrakis (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not conflating anything. The consensus view explicitly states that Greece experienced a linguistic change when a tribe or group of tribes carrying with them the proto-Greek language entered the peninsula and had a mass orgy with pre-Greeks to create Mycenean. Whether the linguistic change is attributed to a mass population or a limited population depends on the scholar. Regardless if archaeologists can "see" linguistic changes, doesn't mean that their discoveries (i.e. Linear B, cuneiform, etc.) hamper their "sight" of such changes.

The Polome citation was removed and I really don't care if he was responsible for stating that there is no physical evidence to substantiate a proto-Greek invasion. That I used his name in my discussions for simplicity purposes does not mitigate the value of the fact I was emphasizing. End of story.

Catling doesn't have to say what I want it to. Its purpose is to complement the Runnels citation. Anything else? Deucalionite (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I'm surprised the Polome citation was not removed. Deucalionite (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Séfériadès reference

Deucalionite, you have added a series of references which do not say what you claim they say. This is not acceptable. The Séfériadès article is talking about an autochthonous development of neolithic technology (agriculture, house-building, etc.), and never talks about "proto-Greeks" (a linguistic term). He does mention that nomads of northern Greece, including "Wallachian shepherds (slavic or saracatsane of greek language" (section 5) follow some practices which go back thousands of years, but I don't think that he is claiming that the Wallachian (Vlach?), Slavic, or Greek languages were spoken continuously in the area. He does mention Poulianos's theory about the Sarakatsans -- but that again says nothing about language. Your tendentious reading of this and other sources is not helpful in editing this article. --macrakis (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Who said anything about me claiming that the proto-Greek language was spoken continuously in Greece? All I'm emphasizing is the fact that the presence of "proto-Greeks" is older than their supposed "linguistic migration" into Greece. The Seferiades reference also complements Runnels since Neolithic agricultural and technological trends evolved in situ (i.e. Greece). Yes, I'm aware that he cites Poulianos, but I could care less about who he chooses to include in his work just as long as he adheres to scientific methodologies. So, I think you need to relax and stop assuming that I care about the proto-Greek language. I'm concerned about the physical presence of proto-Greeks and their progenitors. Nothing else. Deucalionite (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So the real issue is wether we can call the people that were in Greece prior to the IE migrations (and we all agree there were people prior to the migrations) and with whom the migrants mixed (as per Britannica) proto-Greeks. Hence the issue becomes one of finding WP:RS citations that name them as such if they indeed exist if they don't the matter should be dropped for good. Does anyone object to the above two lines?--Xenovatis (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xenovatis. --macrakis (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether they were called "proto-Greeks" or not, a population that would later become the Greeks existed in Greece way before 1600 BC. Way before the advent of Linear B. Had the "proto-Greeks", "would-be-Greeks", or "pre-proto-Greeks" migrated from some long lost Urheimat, then evidence of migration would have been found. So far, the evolution of Aegean populations (including "proto-Greeks" regardless if the term is used) was a process that occurred in situ. Deucalionite (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Proto-X" is a linguistic term referring to a (usually reconstructed, hypothetical) language ancestral to X. It makes no commitments to biology. The speakers of proto-X may be the ancestors of few/some/most/all of the speakers of X. We do not refer to the Gaulish speakers of what is now France as the proto-French or the proto-Romance, though their descendants mostly speak French. Conversely, most speakers of English today have few ancestors who spoke Old English (proto-English, if you like).

It is likely that most of the descendants of the people living in the geographic area of Greece in 3000 BC are ethnically Greek Greek-speakers today. It is also likely that many ethnically Greek Greek-speakers today have many ancestors who did not live in that geographic area in 3000 BC. But none of that has anything to do with the reconstructed proto-Greek language. --macrakis (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite, if you have sources that support your argumentation please bring them. Otherwise we need to move on. Please help us.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay guys. Anyway, the term "proto-Greek" has extended itself beyond the academic realm of linguistics. Case in point:

• Norwick, Stephen A. The History of Metaphors of Nature: Science and Literature from Homer to Al Gore. Edwin Mellen Press, 2006, ISBN 0773455922, p. 12. "Paleolithic proto-Greeks noticed that each clan had a similar little goddess called a "nymph" at the spring in each little bit of forest."

I'm no expert in the field of "Metaphors in Nature", but I do know that Norwich utilizes the phrase "Paleolithic proto-Greeks" as a historical term despite the problems the term itself might create with linguists or perhaps even archaeologists. Again, this example is only meant to show that the "proto-Greeks" are not just a linguistic group.

This source, on the other hand, is a bit more blunt about the origins of the "proto-Greeks".

• Alexander Cambitoglou and Jean-Paul Descœudres. Eumousia: Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Cambitoglou. Meditarch, 1990 ISBN 090979717X, p. 7. "The Proto-Greeks buried inside the pithoi of the MH tumulus were of Mediterranean-Aegean origin. They were autochthonous, not immigrated from the northern Balkans..."

Anything else? Deucalionite (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to cite the full second sentence from the second source? 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is unavailable via Google Book. Only this additional bit is offered: as has been supported by those believing in the theory of the arrival in waves of Kurgan. We would need a fuller excerpt. I checked and this Jean-Paul Descoeudres fellow is a professor at the Swiss Archaeological School of the University of Geneva while Alexander Cambitoglou is emeritus prof at the Classics dept of U Sydney. So it would most certainly be a valid source if we have more to go on, though note it would still constitute a minority view. As for the first source it doesn't strike me as reliable given that the man, though a professor, is in fact a professor of geology, not anthropology, history etc. The second one is an amazing find, good one Deuci.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assessments are right on the money Xenovatis. I only presented the first source as an example of how scholars use the term "proto-Greek(s)" for non-linguistic purposes. As for the second source, just give me a few days and I'll be more than happy to provide everyone with a complete citation. Anything else? Deucalionite (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay everyone, but I had to actually ask several friends of mine to help me out. Anyway, the information happens to come from an article entitled "Excavations in the Region of Pylos" by George S. Korrés. Here's the full citation on page 7:

"The Proto-Greeks buried inside the pithoi of the MH tumulus were of Mediterranean-Aegean origin, as is indicated by the burial customs. They were autochthonous, not immigrated from the northern Balkans, as has been supported by those believing in the theory of the arrival in waves of Kurgan peoples. No burial-pithoi are known from regions to the north of Leucas, which confirms A. Häusler's conclusion that there is no evidence for the arrival of Kurgan people anywhere in Greece."

Phew! I literally had to assemble the A-Team to get this stuff. Deucalionite (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added sources

I have added a number of academic sources on the subject of Greeks and Orthodoxy. They can be found on the Talk Archive exactly below the archived talk pages. The gist is this: religious and ethnic discontinuity, cultural and linguistic continuity, indeterminate biologic continuity. I would like to hear opinons on how this should or could be reflected in the article. Obviously if you disagree with the above I would like to hear why and with which points. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC) See here:

• Sources Greeks
• Sources Religion
• Sources Transmission

--Xenovatis (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenovati, thanks for this collection of sources! Very useful. A few comments on your summary: you say "cultural and linguistic continuity". I would be interested to understand in more detail what you mean by "cultural continuity". Are you speaking of high culture (literature, philosophy, ...) or of culture in the anthropological sense? Clearly high culture was preserved over the centuries both in the region and in the West. Also clearly, many individual practices survive through the centuries (a favorite topic in the 19th century). But I'm not sure how one could make the idea of 'cultural continuity' more precise, since many critical cultural features were lost/discarded over the centuries (notably religion, as you say) and others were borrowed/adapted/mixed from other cultures (much cuisine).

As for the language, clearly Greek never died out as a spoken language, and continued to be used as a written language. But some of the 'continuity' is really 'revival': it is a created continuity in some sense.... --macrakis (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1 The Greek classics were preserved not by the West or the Arabs but by the Greek-speakers. Sources Transmission
• 2 I am referring to education (the Classics were almost uninteraptedly taught in the Greek speaking world) and philosophy (the longest Aristotelian tradition is the Greek one). Also a sense of collective identity (the Greek speakers never identified solely as Christians as for example the Slavs, but rather as Romans)and exclusion (the use of the term barbarian to indicate a non-Greek first and a non-Roman later). Then there is also the issue of wether Christianity and in particular that brand of it that used Greek as the liturgical and literary language is indeed un-related to Hellenism. The sources I provided suggest it isn't, though not for lack of trying by the Early Church Fathers. Smith makes a good summary and I have included the relevant passage. I shall be adding more as time permits. According to Smith while the modern Greek nation is a product of modernity it is also an evolution of a pre-existing diasporic ethno-religious identity.
• 3 By comparisson modern English is not even reminescent of Old English while modern Hebrew is precisely a revival of a dead language. There are several quotes on the continuity of the Greek language and literature in the main article. Please consult them. Then try to read this. and this from Suidas Ἁβροδιαίτῃ: τρυφερᾷ ζωῇ καὶ ἁπαλῇ. καὶ Ἁβροδίαιτος: τρυφητὴς, τρυφερόβιος. τοῖς δὲ Ῥωμαίοις οὐκ ἐς τὸ ἁβροδίαιτον ὁ βίος: ἄλλως δὲ ὡς φιλοπόλεμοί τέ εἰσι καὶ φερέπονοι. σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν πλουσίως ζῶντα. καὶ Ἁβρότητι: τρυφερότητι, ἁπαλότητι. --Xenovatis (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Quite so, what I meant to say (but unfortunately didn't!) was that the Greek classics were part of high culture both in the Greek world and (starting later) in the West.
• 2 Yes, as I say, for high culture we have lots of interesting sources. For popular culture, we have much less evidence. And let's be careful about the term "Hellenism", which is just as 'versatile' a term as "Greek".
• 3 What's your point here? Similarity isn't the issue. I was simply pointing out that the continuity between ancient and modern was on two levels, the popular and the learned, and that the learned was partially re-incorporated into the spoken language in the 19th century. --macrakis (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Starting later means there was no continuity in that area in the Western world but only in the Greek, see Britannica.
• 2 Please read the sources I provided, in particular those by academics on nations, nationalism and anthropology like Smith (LSE), Leousi (Reading), Jusdanis (Ohio State) , Roger Just (Kent, it is in History and Ethnicity) and others.
• 3 There is no point in debating what you perceive as continuity or not. The academic opinon on continuity is that it's there. Please read the sources provided in the main article. As a personal aside if the re-incorporation which you mentioned and I don't deny was as extensive as you imply then you shouldn't have been able to read this which is written in the early 19th c. vernacular. You can also consider A History of the Greek Language from its Origins to the Present by Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (U. Salamanca, Spanish Academy).--Xenovatis (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Agreed. I though my note clarified what I meant.
• 2 Yes, I'm familiar with those sources. When I have a chance (not for a while probably), I will add some additional sources from the more specialized literature on modern Greek nationalism/identity. There have been some good, more recent, articles in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies among others. And there has also been work by anthropologists which doesn't seem to be represented (yet!) in this list of sources.
• 3 I agree that our goal on WP is to represent academic opinion as found in RS. We have to be careful not to be selective in our reading, though. --macrakis (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2 If you have access to Muse or Athena that would be fantastic and it would be great if you could upload some of the relevant excerpts from articles in the JMGS.
• 3 Considering that no one else, including you, has bothered to bring any sources to the table I don't see I should appreciate the dig. I am happy to consider all RS and look forward to your input. I hope you will continue to be involved in this article as it could use someone with your pov.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a dig. We all have to be careful (including me) of confirming our preconceptions and of searching for the most convenient, rather than the best, sources. --macrakis (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, I'm very impressed with the collection of sources you managed to compile Xenovatis. Good job. However, I don't think the "ethnic discontinuity" model befits the Greeks. The Smith references you've cited are very good, but some of them contain a couple of caveats. First off, Smith is wrong to assume that Greece was inundated by Slavs since he acknowledges (unreliable) Byzantine literary sources at face value (i.e. Sklavinias) without providing corroborating physical evidence. The same, of course, can be said regarding the Albanians. Second, Smith is incorrect to assume that the Greeks lacked a cohesive ethnic consciousness prior to 1261. The fact that the "Byzantines" used Greek ethnonyms (i.e. Graikoi) should be a clear indication of their ability to acknowledge descent as an essential, albeit not politically dominant, aspect of their identity (see Byzantine Greeks). If you want sources, then I'll be more than happy to provide them. Deucalionite (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that we should classify the biological continuity of the Greeks as "indeterminate" in light of recent research (Link 1, Link 2). God forbid if science is on the Greeks' side. Ha! :) Deucalionite (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deuci, I am familiar with many of the primary sources and references to Hellenes in Eastern Roman texts. However these are primary sources and we can't use them since it would constitute OR, we don't really know what they meant and how they meant it. A good secondary source is Kaldeli's Hellenism in Byzantium from Cambrdge U. press. There Kaldelis argues that the Romaic identity was not merely political as Greek nationalism maintains but rather ethnic. So while they didn't lack a cohesive ethnic conscsiousness, Smith afirms that anyway, that consciousness was not Hellenic but Roman. As for the Sklavinies, I am aware that there has been modern genetic research postdating or simply unavailable to Smith and (obviously) Falmerayer but unless relevant, modern, reliable and clear secondary academic sources can be brought to support that it would be OR to interpret the findings of genetic research as suggesting one or the other.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about primary sources? Regarding the so-called "Slavic invasions", please refer to the following citations:

• Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 308. "Nor does the idea of a "Slavic tide" covering the Balkans in the early 600s fit the archaeological data. South of the Danube river, no archaeological assemblage comparable to those found north of that river produced any clear evidence for a date earlier than c. 700."

• Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 308. "Though both Greece and Albania produced clear evidence of seventh-century burial assemblages, they have nothing in common with the "Slavic culture" north of the Danube river."

As for Kaldellis' work, it isn't really that special since he ends us emphasizing the Romanity of the Byzantine Empire to create an academic counterweight against scholars who emphasize the empire's Hellenicity. Yet, it is quite questionable for Kaldellis to state that the Greeks were lost to the "Roman melting pot" when they technically constituted the majority population in the Greek East. Moreover, Roman-era Greeks were largely left to govern themselves by the actual Romans, a phenomenon that was largely carried over into the Byzantine era. Another caveat in Kaldellis's work entails his inability to differentiate between competing ethnonyms ("Hellenes" and "Graekoi") to which the "Byzantines" emphasized the latter for ethnic self-identification without invoking the paganistic connotations of the former (except for the Greeks of Trebizond). Ultimately, the ethnic consciousness of the "Byzantines" was not Roman (i.e. Latin) but rather Romaic (i.e. Greco-Roman) with the Greeks utilizing the term Roman as a title of political and cultural inheritance. Kaldellis needs to look up August Heisenberg's more accurate definition of the Byzantine Empire (a definition that, to an extent, coincides with the empire's sense of uniformity). Deucalionite (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Kaldellis's "silent literature" argument regarding the "disappearance" of the Greek ethnos (ethny, genos, etc.) prior to the 13th century is weak. Most "Byzantines" relied upon oratorical traditions since paper was unfortunately not an abundant resource. That Byzantine literary sources reflected the Byzantine socio-political interests of whichever era they were written in should come as no surprise to anyone. So, I really wouldn't be shocked if ultimately the "Byzantines" emphasized their ethnic "Graikos-ness" while also emphasizing their socio-political sense of "Romaios-ness" and their religious sense of being good "Christianoi" via word-of-mouth. Deucalionite (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Curta references say nothing about wether Slavs displaced Greeks! One says that slavs descended in the 8th rather than the 7th century and the other that their culture in Greece was different to that up north.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. The Slavs didn't displace the Greeks. There is barely any evidence to support the existence of a massive Slavic invasion(s) of Greece. By the way, here is a source regarding ethnicity in Byzantium.

• Harrison, Thomas. Greeks and Barbarians. Taylor & Francis, 2002, ISBN 0415939593, p. 268. "Roman, Greek (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became synonymous terms, counterposed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominately of Greek ethnicity and language, were often called simply...['the people who bear Christ's name']."

Though Harrison's work needs some tweaking, the citation is quite accurate. Deucalionite (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:50 largest Greek diaspora.png

How an earth is Turkey ranked as 1-10 in the largest communities of Greeks by country? Since 13th December this image has been a complete propaganda! Please somebody change this ludicrous statement. I am not even going to bother reading this article now because I now have the feeling that all the information is probably false and unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.25 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does say 20th century, heehee. No, really, you could contact the user who updated the map and ask him about it. I assume he accidentally took into account some completely unreliable (or, perhaps, reliable but only for "Greek speakers" or "people of Greek origin" and not Greeks) numbers cited in another article. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

their are more than 7.000.000 greek muslims in turkey.[1]--78.34.228.84 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Only 7 million? Pffffffffff!!! And I thought we were at least 45 million, not to mention the other 145 million Greeks abroad...

ΥΓ: Σε παρακαλω σοβαρεψου Kapnisma (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 5.000 Greeks (Rum/Pontos) in Turkey is absolutely insane. There are more like half a million of us. NeoRetro (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That depends on who you define as "Greek". I highly doubt there are 500,000 that identify as Greeks (Yunanlar), but 500,000 sounds about right if you include people of known Greek descent, but who are Muslim, speak Turkish, and also identify as Turks. Now, if you could bring a source to back up that figure of 500,000, we might be able to do something about this. Best, --Athenean (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section again

Knowing the reliability of the way Deucalionite deals with sources, I just did a random check on one of those quoted in his most recent version of the genetics section. The one that's currently footnote 103, cited to support the "Other studies also point out the significant frequency drop of the R1a marker over the short geographic distance between Greece and its Slavic northern neighbours (since prehistoric times).[103]". It's cited as "Rootsi, Siiri; et al. (2004). "Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe" . American Journal of Human Genetics 75: 128–137. [2]"

This paper does not mention a "R1a" marker even once.

I know too little about population genetics to fix this section. But there's one thing I do know, and that is that I don't trust Deucalionite writing it. Wherever in the past I have checked anything he has written about genetics or historical origins of populations, it has always, invariably, turned out to be misleading, misquoted, or otherwise distorted.

As an emergency measure, I am removing the whole section now, and will from now on blanket revert anything and everything written on the topic, without further discussion, if it comes from Deucalionite. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange coincidence! I was looking at exactly the same section at the same time, and came to the same conclusion. In fact, I got an edit conflict when I tried to save my comments! Here is what I wrote:

The current text of the "genetic origins" seriously misrepresents at least two of its sources. It implies that Greeks are significantly more related among themselves than they are to outside groups, when in fact the cited studies show the opposite. Kondopoulou et al.: "no significant differences with other European populations were found for the loci studied". Kouvatsi et al.: "genetic trees...revealed homogeneity between Europeans". What one of the articles did show was a high level of genetic mixing....

Either the editor who added this material (was it Deucalionite?) did not understand it, or he intentionally misrepresented it. Either way, I think from now on we should presume that his edits are unreliable until proven otherwise. --macrakis (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, that material has seen too much editing and reverting by too many editors (mix-ups are possible); Deucalionite probably overlooked it. On the other hand, he does have a penchant for pushing his ideas (even if they happen to be supported by a minority) on prehistory so perhaps the "neolithic proto-Greeks" can finally be removed (especially since the EIEC link includes such scenarios as well). 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, shit, yes, that particular reference was actually inserted by Xenovatis [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint everyone, but I don't think I created this section even though I did support keeping it. For the record, all I did was make a decent attempt at fixing the section since I noticed some caveats that even Mackrakis overlooked. Future, your "emergency measures" amount to nothing other than you using me as a scapegoat. Meh, standard procedure. Bye now. Deucalionite (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, isn't Hxseek an "expert" or something on genetic studies? Why not consult him since he's the one who first mentioned "Greek genes" in the discussion page? Oh, but it's a lot easier to blame me since I'm the one trying to fix the damn section so that it stays. Deucalionite (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I referred to "...the editor who added this material" who either didn't understand or misrepresented his sources. I asked "(was it Deucalionite?)" but did not check the edit history. I further suggested that that editor's edits (whoever it is) should be presumed unreliable.

As for the "emergency measures", given that FP found that one article didn't say what the text reported it said, and that I found that two other articles didn't say what the text reported it said, it seems perfectly reasonable to pull the section. --macrakis (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. I'm so relieved. Removing the section is one thing. Using me as a scapegoat just because I happen to support keeping the section is another. Meh. Deucalionite (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, apart from illustrating sloppy summarising of sources, the section also illustrates the dangers of (poor) "original research" more generally. Apparently, Xenovatis was trying to collect together ("synthesize") data that could serve as an argument on the issue of how strong the impact of the medieval Slavic migrations was on the Greek genetic identity. But the articles he found weren't dealing with Slavic migrations, or with genetic identities of ethnic groups. He was just cherry-picking whatever he thought was relevant indirectly. That's precisely what we ought not to be doing.

To Deuc: I apologise for falsely blaming this particular error on you. I do not retract my general judgment of your editing, nor my determination to keep you out of this topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis himself removed the section in the first place (before its reinsertion) so it's all good. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, in actually reading the articles I learned some interesting things. For example, one article cited early on (and later removed) says:

Strikingly, although the level of recent [i.e. Bronze Age to the present] gene flow surviving under this criterion is similar for most populations, at 5%–9%, the eastern-Mediterranean region (samples from Thessaloniki, Sarakatsani, and Albanians) has a very high value, 20%. This may reflect the heavy historical gene flow known between Greece and other populations of the eastern Mediterranean. --"Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool", American journal of human genetics 67:5:1251 (2000).

In other words, this analysis shows an especially high level of genetic mixing.... The two articles I mentioned earlier found a high level of "homogeneity between Europeans". Now, I don't think this tells us anything at all about ethnicity, but for those who think it does.... --macrakis (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You're misinterpreting this particular analysis by automatically subscribing to the notion of "genetic mixing" when all the quote is inferring to is that there exists a degree of genetic relatedness between population groups in the eastern Mediterranean (i.e. the Balkans, Anatolia, etc.). Not exactly a "shocking" discovery if you ask me. Deucalionite (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This goes to both FP and SM. In the future please respond to what is in fact written, not what you think/hope/believe is. That should probably get things moving a bit quicker. As for the matter at hand (R1a, slavic etc) it has been discussed in this talk page and pertinent citations were brought. You can find them in the archives.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have me confused now; are you defending the paragraph as it stood? Now, I'm truly ignorant enough I wouldn't recognise an I from an R if it jumped at me and bit me in the arse, but I was under the impression they are not supposed to be the same thing. The paper that you cited as supporting a claim about Hg R differences isn't dealing with Hg R, it is talking exclusively about Hg I. That was just one apparent error in that section, the one that I happened to stumble across. I haven't checked the items Stavros checked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not defending the paragraph at all, which is why I removed it in the first place. Now if you don't mind I don't care to waste any more time on it or your slander.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "Slander"? Come on, if you agree the passage should go, then we're fine, a good-faith error was made, no hard feelings and no accusations. But I wasn't aware you had ever distanced yourself from it. On 24 December, you removed it from here – but apparently only in order to move it into a different article ([4]). Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

X, where do you think I am responding to something other than what is written? D, see gene flow: "In population genetics, gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another." --macrakis (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis, gene flow in reference to allele frequencies mainly determines gene migration. However, in order to properly determine admixture levels in any specific group, genetic analyses of paternal and maternal ancestries/lineages (mtDNA, X and Y chromosomes) would be more appropriate. Even if the study infers to "genetic mixing", the wording renders the inference as ultimately inconclusive ("may reflect heavy historical gene flow known between Greece and other populations of the eastern Mediterranean" [known by whom?]). If you read Simoni's work ("Patterns of Gene Flow Inferred from Genetic Distances in the Mediterranean Region". Hum Biol; 71:399-415), you'll understand that gene flow is technically a sharp line splitting the Mediterranean in half from "Gibraltar to Lebanon" and that it is "a joint product of initial geographic isolation and successive cultural divergence, leading to the origin of cultural barriers to population admixture". Even though Simoni states that there is genetic variability within Greece, geneticists and even physical anthropologists see this as a reflection of geographical variability (the presence of hills, mountains, and islands as "genetic barriers" that allows for genetic micro-evolution to occur). DiGiacomo ("Clinal Patterns of Human Y chromosomal Diversity in Continental Italy and Greece Are Dominated by Drift and Founder Effects". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28.) makes it abundantly clear:

"Genetic isolation due to physical barriers can also affect NRY spatial heterogeneity. Among the main features of both Italy and Greece is the prevalence of mountainous and hilly areas. This may have favored isolation, with mountain ranges impairing gene flow and ultimately resulting in zones of rapid genetic change."

You might want to ultimately tweak your "genetic migration always equals genetic mixing" argument. Of course, I'm probably too bored right now to give a damn about "Greek genes". It was fun while it lasted. Deucalionite (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. The paper you chose to cite says:

The high gene frequency differentiation observed in this study not only within mainland Greece but also between Greek Cypriots and Greeks of the Aegean Islands... supports the view that present-day Greek speakers are a genetically heterogeneous group, not a more internally uniform group than the other language groups of Europe .... Conversely, once again, significant genetic differences between some Greek and Turkish populations were not detected in this study...

Is that what you had in mind? --macrakis (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Like I said, I'm too bored to give a damn. As far as anyone is concerned, the "Genetics section" is a dead issue here (unless Hxseek decides to bring it up again). Again, it was fun while it lasted. Bye. Deucalionite (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Never mind"? Thanks to the various citations you and Xenovatis have provided, I think we have a good case for including a statement supported by reliable sources that "the Greeks cannot be distinguished genetically from other ethnic and linguistic groups of the Balkans and Anatolia". --macrakis (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Far be it for me to agree with you (more or less), I think it's best we keep "Greek genes" away from the Greeks article. Xenovatis created the Greek identity article in order to transfer any content from this article that tends to create more disputes than it solves. Of course, we can continue our discussion over at the Greek identity article and avoid the usual "you're violating consensus" trap. Up to you. Deucalionite (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating an article simply as a dumping ground for problematic material to have it out of the way was never a good idea to begin with. Bad material must not be shuffled around, it must be removed. Especially if it is as seriously flawed – verging on downright falisification – as the genetics section demonstrably is. Besides, having a genetics section in an "identity" article makes no sense anyway, even if it could be rewritten to the highest standards. What the hell has prehistoric gene flow to do with anybody's ethnic identity? Only a racist could conceive of such an idea.

The "identity" article will be redirected back here, in the continued absence of any serious arguments against. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a seminar on "anti-racism". Scientific studies that directly focus only on Greek populations (as opposed to "prehistoric gene flows") should be mentioned regardless if they are incorporated here or in the "Greek identity" article. Everyone knows that there were caveats in the original composition of the "Genetic origins" section, which is why more time needs to be spent revising it. Having a genetics section in the "Greek identity" or "Greeks" article makes sense only within the context of determining if science validates or disproves Fallmerayer's ethno-historical assessments regardless if they were already rejected by his contemporaries. I agree that no one should put too much emphasis on genetic and/or anthropological studies when it comes to determining the dynamics of Greek ethnic identity (there's obviously more to being Greek than just studying "Greek haplotypes"). But on the other hand, we shouldn't close our eyes to modern science just because of the "racism bogeyman". Do we call the users at the Jews article "racists" because they happen to acknowledge and incorporate genetic and/or anthropological studies? Obviously not. And though racial categories are evidently crude, I doubt any serious scholar would completely ignore physical anthropology and/or genetic studies on the grounds that they both promote "racism". [5] Deucalionite (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Obviously, a genetics section "within the context of determining if science validates or disproves Fallmerayer" would be legitimate only if modern academics were actually using genetics for that purpose. Which, as far as I'm aware, they are not. Including it as an argument in such a context on our own initiative would be the very paradigm of "WP:OR". (BTW, the interscience.wiley.com link isn't working.) A new genetics section can be written, from scratch, once two preconditions are fulfilled: (1) we have reputable academic literature that provides an accessible and responsible actual survey of genetic findings explicitly in relation to an overall discussion of the identity of the Greeks (i.e. not just the type of fragmented reporting of individual empirical studies that you get in the primary scientific research literature – worthy academic work, to be sure, but not digestible for laypeople like us without falling into the OR trap); plus (2) we have a few contributors who have both the know-how and the personal integrity to competently write such section. Neither of the two conditions is fulfilled right now, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you are starting to make sense. By the way, I fixed the interscience.wiley.com link. Deucalionite (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this sound a bit off-topic, but what the hell is wrong with the "Classical" section? Is the section too short? Are there too many quotes? I'm betting it's the bulleted list, right? Deucalionite (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the content is bad. Never mind, you wouldn't understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So the content is "bad", because it's historically blunt? Or is it because the overall section is too "ethnic" for your tastes? You could elaborate, but I totally "understand" if you don't want to. Deucalionite (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perf above. genetics is useful so long it is not used for Chauvanistic purposes. Its not about proving purity, or ancient rights. Greece (and the Balkans) have the most diverse and interesting "genetic history" of all europe. It would be a shame not to include it, but whatever the concensus is on the issue, I'm happy Hxseek (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks ARE related to Italians!

• Italiotes

Besides, where did the Aeneid get its whole purpose from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

population in Greece

I have just started to look at the new estimates given by CIA. According to CIA Greece has an estimated population of some 10,737,428 people... 93% of which are Greeks. This therefore means that the estimated population would be 9,985,808. Shouldn’t this be changed? I understand that the 2001 census is being used right now, but obviously there would be changes after 8years. Justinz84 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is not the most reliable of sources. It is a political, not a scientific, publication, and it nevers reaveals its sources or method. The national census is a far better source, and Greece's population did not shrink by half a million in the meantime. --Athenean (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning the Greek census. But it is 2009 now... I dont think it is sensible to be so critical of CIA as it is also being used in this article. Nonetheless, I still believe up-to-date figures would be great to have. Justinz84 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the population growth rate is something around +0.2%, so it couldn't have shrunk 10.7m, see what I'm saying? Based on the growth rate, 11.2m is a good estimate. The CIA World Factbook is in generally used when no other source is available, as it is after all a tertiary source, per WP:RS. --Athenean (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not in an expertise position to state whether you are right or wrong, although I do understand your point. However, I am merely stating what I have found. Justinz84 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

CIA world fact book is one of the most cited sources on wiki. I'm sure its not as political or unreliable as you suggest. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).

I agree. CIA is pretty reliable. It's used in the majority of articles regarding ethnic groups. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Two thing, first 11.237.068 is the population in Greece according to Official Greek Statistics. If we count all minorities, from Albanians, Slavs, Turks, Armenians, Jews to Roma, together they make around (a quick calculation from Minorities in Greece) 1,000,000. That turns the 11,237,068 to roughly 10,200,000 (similar to the current number) but the only difference is that it is a 2008 census. So the census is neglected I think. Second, the total population in Northern Epirus is around 550,000, how come there are 400,000 Greeks there. That means that the total population of Southern Albania is Greek!!! That has to be changed aslo. Also, the source that is used says from 40,000-400,000 (not 100,000-400,000). Most sources (including OMONIA and Greek Helsinki) agree that the Greek population in Albania is around 100,000 or even less (read this). The number is tremendously exaggerated. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also if you add up the numbers it appears there are 14-15 mil. Greeks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Athenean (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Origins" section

I have introduced an "Origins" h3 section in the "History" h2 one as a redirect target. The question of the "coming of the Greeks" (to the Greek mainland) or the "origin of the Greeks" is an academic debate that may eventually merit its own article. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

History table

Proto greeks tribes from central Europe. What kind of joke is that?. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.200.219 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced in Britannica, look it up.Anothroskon (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

so what if its sourced in britannica. where's the hard proof that they came from c. europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.114.68 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexander

Do not allow Alexander on there with the dispute still going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.76.112 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Karamanlides etc

"""While most Greeks today are descended from Greek-speaking Romioi there are sizeable groups of ethnic Greeks who trace their descent to Aromanian-speaking Vlachs and Albanian-speaking Arvanites as well as Slavophones and Turkish-speaking Karamanlides.""

Turkish speaking Karamanlides numbered about 50-60.000 before the population exchanges, living side by side with the Greek speaking Karamanlides(Kappadokes) numbering together according to the Turkish census [6] and Greek sourses([7]) about 100.000-110.000 Greeks,and about split in two in language, half speaking Greek half Turkish. So we talk about 50.000-60.000 turkophones, if they managed to come all to Greece, of about 6.200.000 population of Greece in 1928(Dodecanese were not included), meaning about 0.01%... The Slavophones also cannot be considered "sizeable group", in contrast to Arvanites and Vlachs who according to late 19th century sources are estimated to number about 200.000 and 150.000 correspondingly, in a total Greek population inside and outside the Greece borders numbering at least 6.500.000.--Kleftakos (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Greeks in France

Is there really 210,000 Greeks in France? I tried looking at the reference but it says 'Access forbidden!'. Moreover, in the article Greeks in France it states that there is 35,000 not 210,000; but even that has no reference. I'm confused about this now so can someone please fix this.86.176.87.169 (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the population of Greeks in Albania. The info box states 200,000 but in the demographics section it states 'There is a sizeable Greek minority of about 105,000 people, in Albania.[112]' Which is it?86.176.87.169 (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

About Katharevousa (language)

"these foreign influences were excluded from official use via the creation of Katharevousa, a somewhat artificial form of Greek purged of all foreign influence and words, as the official language of the Greek state."

Here one should mention that Katharevousa is the evolution of the scholar language. You can read in Francisco Adrados Book "Historia de la Lengua Griega" (History of the greek language) [1999] that since hellenistic times two parallel forms of Greek language exist: The conservative scholar, and the everyday popular greek language. Even Byzantine schools were teaching the homer epics. Homer's language was quite different from the Byzantine Greek. Today Greeks are able to understand some byzantine texts, they can understand some classical ancient Greek phrases, but they are able to recognize just some words of Homeric texts. So since Byzantium already existed two Greek languages. And this situation remains during ottoman occupation and stands until now. "Katharevousa" succeeded the scholar Greek language. Of course it is was a manneristic language, as scholar Greek was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardos (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Diasporas Greek Numbers

Whoever put approximately 16 million Greek worldwide should re do the head count.Excluding Greece and Cyprus 10.8 million together according to the 2001 Census I can only count another 3m Greeks outside of Greece and Cyprus.You have to include the Census where there are Census figures and if there are no Census figures use estimates.Even doing this puts the real numbers at about 14 million Greeks worldwide and not 16m. Siras 4/12/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the UK has 400,000 Greeks then how many Chinese it has!? 4,000,000?! All figures are inflated specially for the UK and Albania. Today, you can't find more than 35,000 Greeks in Albania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.231.28 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New article Greek identity

It would be great if when it comes to the identity of the modern Greeks the insight offered by the poem of Rhigas Ferraios, one the 2-3 "fathers" of the modern Greek nation, was also considered. I made a post regarding that poem (named "Thourios") here: Rigas_Feraios#Ideas_and_legacy Link: http://fotios.org/node/2180--Lonwolve (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of creating a new article Greek identity where those parts of the article in the Modern and Ancient and Genetis' sections that have been deemed extrenneous can go and free up space in the main article. Opinions?--Xenovatis (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a tough one to make (that is, really cover the whole subject in only one article), methinks. But, I'm really not sure if those specific ("race", genes and whatnot) passages would have anything to do with it, anyhow (with the exception of the reaction to Fallm. perhaps). 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It would later split itself in a new greek genetics article etc. Basically I just want a place to dump the stuf you maked as superflous.--Xenovatis (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this. Seems to me like a battleground and troll-hangout in the making. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

About the term Proto-Greek and its usage

On the origins section it says "The Proto-Greeks probably arrived at the area now referred to as Greece". The usage of Proto-Greek for the invading people that entered the Helladic area is wrong. There were no Proto-Greeks invading the Helladic area but a proto-indoeuropean people, that were ofsprings of the Yamna cultures who entered the Balkans. Those invaders stayed in the northern Greek borders and formed the lake cultures (e.g Maliq II) that probably formed a basis for a Greco-Phrygian group of people. Still those people where not Proto-Greeks. When those PIE people entered finally the Helladic area they formed together with native pre-Greek populations what we call "Proto-Greeks". Both the formation of the Greek language and identity formed within the Helladic area. Since none of those existed outside it, the term proto-greek is inaccurate, even though it has been used extensively in the past.

Fkitselis —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC).