This is an archive of past discussions about Greeks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
<Drumroll> Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I present a preliminary image of the 25 notable Greeks we had agreed upon by consensus. Note that for some people, e.g. Archimedes and Hypatia, I used ό,τι με φώτησε ο θεός so to speak. Thoughts, suggestions, hate mail? Athenean (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
</Drumroll> You forgot to stop the drumroll. It was deafening. Seriously though, why are some pics distorted? Some look overly stretched/flattened. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Συγχαριτήρια για τι θεία επιφώτηση. Just a few notes:
In the bottom row, some images seem to be distorted (Piros is too broad, Makarios and the guy next to him seem too thin.)
There also many others I would have liked to see included but this is a settled matter we cannot go over and over again. We already had the time for proposals and discussions. Anyway, I think that this gallery shouldn't be permanent. It could be updated after a period of time (i.e. every 3 months maybe) where we could "rotate" some characters under the same democratic rule of election. We may induce -let's say 5 changes - therefore we choose the 5 personalities we desire to change and the new 5 we will include. Most of your choices surely qualify, indeed. Periptero (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I made some changes. Is it better now? I just updated the uploaded image instead of uploading a new one, so the changes should be visible to the version posted here. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed El Greco, I hope. Two questions: Is everyone in agreement with replacing Nikiphoros Phokas with Alexius Komnenos? I'm asking because the Alexius pic isn't as good [1]. Also, is everyone in favor of using the Louvre bust of Alexander [2] instead of the mosaic? I want to be 100% sure because if I change the images, I have to upload the new collage as a separate file since the permissions will be different, and uploading is quite a bit of work. Athenean (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Athenean. El Greco is ok now, IMO. The bust of Alexander would be better because it would show more detail and there are also other busts as well in the collage. As far as Alexios I agree his picture is not that great. Dr.K.λogosπraxis03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
For Alexios, we also have this image. Which brings me to an important point: if we want the gallery to look nice, then the shots should be either head or at most bust, not of various perspectives, i.e. full-length, half-length etc all mixed together. Constantine ✍ 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted both graphics-experienced editors Costantine has suggested to help in compiling a nice-looking collage. Let us wait a while and see if they answer back -and if they accept to do the job-. If we have the other collages we can compare them and chose the one we like. Else, we go ahead just with this one which is a very good one to start.Periptero (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that Nikiphoros Phokas is an important figure and more famous than Komnenos amongst the Greeks and I dont see something wrong with his image
Totally agree (in fact Phokas was in my original list), but it is another settled matter. When the election result was obtained, I submitted the whole list to WPGR Pr. admins. or qualified editors for approval and after Constantine's advice -read bove "Results ..." - and the consensus of the rest we replaced him by Komnenos. The image itself is not the question.Periptero (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I liked that the figures are in chronological order and that the collage starts with Homer, who is definetely the "ethnarch" of the greek nation. I think that for Pericles the old image is more nice (from the existing collage of the article) and if it was in my hand I would use this for Plato http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Plato_Pio-Clemetino_Inv305.jpg
Now about Alexander, personally I prefer the mosaic aiming to a variety , instead of only busts for the ancients
Greco22 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer mine as well. The heads are all way too big in Phillyboy's version. Also the Leonidas pic is problematic, Plato is placed after Aristotle, that's not Archimedes (but rather Archidamos of Sparta, often mistaken for Archimedes due to the similarity of the names), nor is that Hypatia. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am torn regarding the mosaic: I want it for variety, like Greco22, but I think the bust looks better with the current image size (although it looks good when the image is zoomed up). Athenean (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't take it the wrong way, but I think I agree with Cplakidas here and would go for Philly's version except for the Leonidas and the (plainly unacceptable) Hypatia-who-isn't. About the size of the heads, please keep in mind that they must be visible at a very small total size of the image, so the bigger the faces in relation to the whole, the better the overall readability. Fut.Perf.☼19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, I only now notice that several more people were exchanged. Who is the new middle guy in the second row, and who is the new middle person among the Byzantines? Fut.Perf.☼19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The new guy in the second row is Plato, but he is incorrectly placed before Aristotle. The new Byzantine guy is Alexios Komnenos, but I think it's the wrong one. And that's definitely not Archimedes. No idea who is the guy who replaced Cavafy, either. Regarding size, I think the size at which my collage is showing (350px) is large enough so that the individuals are shown clearly, but small enough to fit in an infobox. I think in Phillyboy's version the images are too small. Compare the infobox at Italians with that of French people or Turkish people, which one is better? Personally, I like showing a little more of the body for context (e.g. I feel Karaiskakis' head is way too big in Phillyboy's version). My vote for best collage: Poles. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
About Kavafy, sorry for not noticing at once, that's in fact still him, at a younger age (although the later portrait is somehow more characteristic.) About Alexius, yep, thanks, wrong person (and a quite unimportant personality too). About size, not that I would want to launch into my campaign of fundamental opposition again, but I still say, the smaller the better. We want at least some part of the real infobox contents to be still visible on the screen without scrolling down. Fut.Perf.☼20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean. His collage is a good base for discussion
If everyone makes a collage finally we will get confused
Greco22 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, some of the images in my version could use some cropping (e.g. Kolokotronis). But I do like the way that part of Bouboulina's and Karaiskakis' outfits are showing. I am working on version 2.0, taking into account some of the recent input, coming soon to a talkpage near you. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Some thoughts about changes in moderns:
Why Karaiskakis and not Alexander Ypsilantis (1792–1828) who started the revolution in Romania and he is also more famous? Karaiskakis was one of the many generals of the revolution
We could replace also Bouboulina (for the same reason) with Basilios Bessarion for having a represantion of Greek scholars in Renessaince
I agree that Maria Callas is more well-known than Pyrros Dimas, but it would be nice to have living person in there. Also, the Greek scholars of the Renaissance are represented through Gemistos Plethon.
Greco we could replace the whole 25 personalities we have chosen with the ones you propose and still be a remarkable collage. But we have already decided the ones that will be included in THIS collage. Why Karaiskakis and not Ypsilantis? Because we have voted and chosen like that. Why Pyrros and not Maria Callas? Because of the same reason. Why not replacing Bouboulina with Bessarion? Because it would be a lack of respect for those users who got involved from the begining (it was not your case) and chose Lascarina. There are many I would like to see in the 25 and others that I consider not worth to be included there. But we set the rules from the start, it is useless to continue trying to remove some and adding others. THE TIME FOR SELECTION IS OVER and we all agreed to accept the result. In a reasonable period of time (3 months? 6 months?) we may replace five personalities and there you may induce as many as you want. THIS COLLAGE STAYS AS IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS THE CHOSEN BY THE MAJORITY. What we are trying to do now is to look for the better image for the gallery, and decide which picture suits better, in the case we have more than one. If you happen to help please go ahead. Else, you are going over a matter which is fait accompli.- Periptero (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
@Periptero 1) relax, 2) in wikipedia we do not vote, we discuss 3)you are not any kind of wikipedian "dictator" to say TIME IS OVER ---you are not alone here----
4)you change mind every day cause yesterday seemed you agreed with me (as I see its obvious that you decided abt some personalities that you like as Karaiskakis for example, plus without knowing well the greek history---otherwise you could state some arguments)
5)I try to offer my opinions for a better and more represantative collage
6)Improve your behaviour
Greco22 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to stay to the representation point and not to the "racial", even if μουστακαληδες next to ancient greeks is pleasure for the anti-greeks and a nice example of kitsch
Greco22 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Greco please, try to understand. I do not intend to have an argument with you. Just I want you to see that we have all consensed from the begining and set the rules about this whole project. We have been through the proposal stage, the discussion stage and the selection stage. We are now at the image editing stage. Here is where you got through and added certain very interesting points. But we cannot go through the whole selection over and over again, just because you were absent at the begining. If we change the results freakishly we are not respecting the decision of the majority and it is a lack of respect to those users who spent their time by voting. Indeed we voted, because as Cavafy -whom I did not propose- got more votes than Elytis -whom I proposed- he is in the gallery, but Elytis isn't.Periptero (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Karaiskakis, I gave my own opinion about him in the preliminary stage. If you want to knwo what I think, you may also read the article for Spanish WP that I co-wrote: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Karaiskakis
I also admire Ypsilantis very much, but this is a matter for further discussions which I invite you to do via my user's talk page where you may even get to know that my knowledge in Greek history is not that elementary.
What I want to point to you is that if you keep on pulling back each time by trying to replace this by the other we will never move forward. And this is what you have been doing so far. Anyway, so as for you to feel better and understand that I won't take this matter personal I assure you that I quit the discussions. Quoting Xenophon, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα I hope somone else deals with it.- Periptero (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
<Drumroll> Here is Version 2.0. Replaced the image of Pericles and decided to go along with the bust of Alexander, and also replaced Nicky "The Hammer" Phokas with (a rather creepy-looking, in my opinion) Al "The Machine" Komnenos, as it seemed most people preferred that. </Drumroll>
Personally I think that Phillyboy's artistic version but with Athenean's picture ammendments is the greatest combination.Periptero (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@Periptero I think you have the tension to exegerate
The whole subject as I see in the discussion section started from the late December. You think that 6 or 7 days are enough for a discussion such this? I guess there are many Greek editors that would want to say their opinion even now and they have no idea about all this...
Seems like an express-process collage. Most of the personalities were suggested by yourself (and I dont find it bad but at least listen and to other people!)
Dont argue all the time abt "voting" which ended . Thanks God, I can read and I see that a short discussion has taken place before "time was over" as you say all the time. It is not a tv-show or sms votes, neither we are 500 or 1000 opinions that have voted
I dont write all this offensively to you. I just want you to understand that the more we discuss ,the collage is getting better...
You want Karaiskakis fine! Say why you think he has to be in a collage like this and let me also express my opinion, historically and why not? aesthetically also to avoid kitsch. Thank you
Greco22 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Enough with the Karaiskakis' subject chap. Just if you want to know, he represents for me the Greek soldier of popular extraction, with little education but brave, highly intelligent and determined. Not trained with British troops or in Russian academies but with kleftic craftiness and wisdom. His military genius was not limited to ground combat but he was also the author of several plans of attack based on amphibious operations (we are at the begining of the XIX century !) that were never carried out only by the ineptitude and incompetence of both the British military and navy, as well as the local authorities. There is consensus among military historians that the amphibious operations suggested by Karaiskakis would have meant total victory for the Greeks, and could have shortened three years the war of Independence. I was really proud to read in the military school where I was educated, manuals in Spanish evoking these things about him. Those are just a few reasons why in my humble opinion, I considered him to be included but even if he is not, it doesn't change my mood. What I do not stand is how you arrive late and start turning things upside down freakishly, breaking up an undestanding and creating an unoperative spirit. The fact that most of the personalities were proposed by myself becomes anecdotic; it just happened to be me the one who started with the idea, nothing else. The other users confirmed many, objected some and added their own choices. It is not a question of rushing in time, but a question of making either "res non verba" or falling in a "byzantine discussion" (pun intended) such as this one. I think there is nothing left to say between you and me. Let us finish here.- Periptero (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You know in Greece there is a proverb Γιαννης κερνα ,Γιαννης πινει (John offers, John drinks his offer) Is said when somebody sets his rules arbitrarily and thinks that everyone has to obey. This happens right now to you. If you look up you will see whose comments are polite and whose are "friky"
You baptize a simple conversation betweenthree editors, "voting process" and you dont want to listen anything else
I think the spirit of wiki is democratic and plus, personally, as a Greek, I m not sheep to sut my "mouth" closed
are you Karaiskakis nephew? I like that in your military school, you learned abt Karaiskakis, maybe you should learn also and about other brave men of Greek revolution and history, as for example Kolokotronis or the poor Kanaris from Psara who dominated Aigaion and became bugbear for the turks. If we had places, I would like to put even Athanasios Diakos who was massacred. You got angry cause i said that Ypsilantis started the revolution and he was the leader of Filiki Etaireia, while Karaiskakis was one of many generals, and you had nothing to say.
Your attitude is definetely childish.Ciao ciao
Greco22 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, it is evident that I make myself not clear to you. There is enough said about. It is is not a clash between Karaiskakis and Ypsilantis and of course I do admire Ypsilantis. I am not placing Karaiskakis on top of the 1821 heroes ... please ! If the others agree, do change Karaiskakis ...ok? How can I denny Kolokotronis or Kanaris? I have never stated so. Do you really know how much I learned or not about the Greek revolution so as to judge my knowledge? (Maybe paying a visit to some of my contributions made or articles I wrote will show you a different opinion) This not the point here. What I dislike about you, is that you discredit the whole process just because you were absent. There were much more than three people discussing in the whole term. You weren't. And then you arrive and start questioning decisions that others arranged. We won't agree so let us not continue clashing since it is not a forum, but as it seems you want to, you are welcome to my personal talk page. Ἐγὼ δὲ ὀφείλω λέγειν τὰ λεγόμενα, πείθεσθαί γε μὲν οὐ παντάπασι ὀφείλω. Periptero (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
OK guys, please let's stop this here. The discussion has been derailed enough. Greco, for better or for worse, the discussion as to who to include is over. If everyone who has a favourite continued to press for his/her inclusion we'd be at it for ages and nothing would get done. Let me remind you all that in any event, this is a relatively trivial issue. Please spend your time, intellect and knowledge in writing articles, not debating who to include in galleries.
Now, commenting on Athenean's new version... Especially in small resolutions, some figures are impossible to distinguish (Bouboulina, Archimedes, Hypatia, Basil II and Alexios Komnenos), and need a smaller cropping and zooming in. I'd also suggest a closer zoom on Leonidas' head, and using s slightly different crop for Venizelos (i.e. removing the black empty space underneath so as to "draw" him a bit more to the center). I think that as a rule of thumb, the eyes of each subject should be in the third quarter of the image Constantine ✍ 12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
PS if Philly boy92 can fix his errors I'd still support his version though, Both for uniformity, and because I find the addition of the white border between the thumbnails to be aesthetically pleasing. Constantine ✍ 12:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I hear your concerns and thought about them for quite a while, so here is the latest version. I've cropped most of the images, however, regarding the white space around each image, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I also insist on retaining the costumes (e.g. Bouboulina), as they are an integral part of Greek culture (much more so than the facial features, after all, Balkaners look alike). Now then, unless someone objects strenuously, I will place this version in the infobox in the near future. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Greek ethnic continuity? (continuation of Mixed Topic)
Mcorazao was correct in much of what he said under the heading of Mixed Topic (above). Unfortunately, he failed to get to the point on sources. It is in fact a mainstream academic point of view (outside of Greece) that it is bogus to claim the certainty f ethnic continuity for modern Greeks and 'ancient Greeks'. Here's just one example:
“Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries A.D. by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and later, Albanian immigrants …modern Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out”
Anthony D. Smith, ‘National Identity’ (1991) ISBN0-14-012565-5, p.29
One could also add in Turkish migration and others. It's a great omission in the article, which makes it read like either a piece of Byronic romanticism or Greek nationalism. It should be corrected. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "ethnic" continuity? If you mean continuity of descent, then I think most Greeks would agree with you. However the Greek "identity" in all its subsequent forms and names has stopped being bound to common descent at least since late Hellenistic times. And that goes for just about any other nation or ethnicity in Europe today, including far more "modern" nations like the French or the Germans. There is however a continuous cultural identity, whose contents and form of course have changed over time, but which has never suffered such a brutal breach of continuity. See Periptero's arguments in the discussion above. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not what the editors responding to Mcorazao said, and that's not the impression given by the Article. @continuity of descent' is exactly what they argued for. I take it then you would support a clarification on this in the Article? DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would. The Slavic invasions at least should be mentioned, but also the re-hellenization by resettlement from Greek populations in southern Italy and Anatolia in the 9th century. Fallmerayer ought to be mentioned too, as he pretty much opened the whole issue of "Greekness" (in terms of purely racial descent) of modern Greeks, as well as the rebuttals to his theory. I am however not really qualified to say how this issue ought to be best stated; it can too easily diverge into supporting the one or the other side of the argument. Constantine ✍ 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to read Arnold Toynbee's "The Greeks and their Heritages", 1981 Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ISBN0-19-215256-4, where you will find that it is neither by chance nor by coincidence that modern Greeks bear the same name of their ancient ancestors (Έλληνες). There is an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia. There relies the ethnic continuity through descent and has nothing to do with "racial purity". Periptero (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite what has been mentioned by Cplakidas and Periptero, perhaps it ought to be said that the period of the Slavic migrations is quite dark and many aspects of it are still debated, including demography. As such the statement "mainstream academic point of view", at least among specialists in the relevant fields (which excludes Smith, who is good in *his* field), by DeCausa is an erroneous one. Also, sorry, but what is exactly the "ethnic continuity" DeCausa mentions? Is there an "ethnic" difference between a formerly slav speaker that is Greek and between a formerly pre-Greek speaker that is Greek? So, DeCausa is basically talking about "genetic/racial continuity" here, no need to dance around the term. The Hellenization of Anatolia up to Cappadocia and the Pontus by the time of the Slavic migrations needs to be mentioned as well, I mean imagine how *that* event changed Greek genetics. Jesus Christ... 87.202.129.162 (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole discussion has been triggered by a rather puzzling post indeed. DeCausa is basically citing a source that refutes him, you don't need to read more than the three first pages of the chapter where those sentences are contained to understand it. So, in the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again ? What are you trying to say and what changes are you asking exactly DeCausa ?--77.49.202.231 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, only Constantine seems to have got the point I was making. The reference to Toynbee and the other three pages in Smith's chapter is exactly the point - and is missing from this Article. Most of the editors in the previous discussion were arguing from the point of view of continuity of, effectively, genetic descent. The article is written from the same perspective. I think there should be a specific section discussing the issues of descent and making it clear that the mainstream view is that 'Greek' population history is about cultural/linguistic continuity in the same territory and not about (or at least not proven to be about) continuity by genetic descent. DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course the continuity is cultural/linguistic. This remains a strong evidence for the ethnic compound. The exact "racial conection" may only be given through genetics. If we take this solid argument as valid there is no ethnic connection in any people since there is no strong or reliable scientific empiric evidence (there are important genetic reasearchs but they are not universally accepted yet). Till then, the cultural substractum is the stronger. DeCausa tries to point that there is no racial connection -therefore no link- between Modern Greeks (including Medieval, I think) and Ancient Greeks which is a major argument used by Anglo-saxon historians. What happens if we take this same hypothesis to other people ? Why can in fact modern Jews (I mean as an ethne -besides religion-) claim they are descendants of ancient Israelites despite their diaspora and be well accepted ? Why can the modern Chinese be directly linked with Ancient China despite foreign invasions? Why can modern Indians shape their history long further back from King Ashoka despite foreign domination ? There you will find that after Fallmerayer's theory onwards (which is in fact our true discussion here) this whole subject about racial continuity or discontinuity of the Greeks is tainted with politics. Other contributions were surely made in Greece by different peoples (Germanic, Franks, Albanians, Slavs, Vlachs and even maybe Turks) which have shaped together with the strong local Hellenic compound the modern Greek identity but it doesn't erase continuity with the Ancient. Periptero (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Calm down! No one's disputing cultural continuity. There's no 'anglo-saxon' conspiracy. There's also controversy about Jewish, Chinese and very definitely about Indian ethnic origins. Greeks are no different from anyone else. The issue may be driven by politics in Greece and the Balkans but, anywhere else, quite frankly, no one cares that much. It's a subject of academic interest only. If anything, the 'anglo-saxon' default position is a Byronic assumption of continuity. DeCausa (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not think I take this personal. I just point out my statements just as you point yours. In an academic spirit I try to discuss with you. I perfectly understand your points, although I do not share them. When I refer to politics I do not mean XXI century politics, but XIX century or early XX century ones -those who in fact gave birth or not to modern nation-states-. Also, the term 'anglo-saxon' I used is maybe not the suitable one. Should I have stated 'germanic' instead? This way, in your words the 'anglo-saxon' default position is a Byronic assumption of continuity, just like to me the 'germanic' default position is a Fallmerayerian assumption of discontinuity. If what you ask is that both positions be present in the article, I agree.Periptero (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't think it's about pro- and anti-Fallmerayer. He's pretty irrelevant/outdated - only of interest from the point of view of historiography. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is just a reductionist way to name both antagonist perspectives Byronic (continuity) vs. Fallmerayerian (discontinuity). A little bit of fun is necessary.- Periptero (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Just not to sound repetetitive. I had expressed my "agreement" before, remember? ("If what you ask is that both positions be present in the article, I agree"). Thank you very much indeed. You give to my opinion an importance that I do not deserve, humbly.-Periptero (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Infobox images
There's a community discussion concerning whether there should or should not be images in infobox templates such as this one. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. Athenean (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Aristotelisonasis.jpg
The image File:Aristotelisonasis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
I think that the label "Religion" should not be present in the infobox. By stating that religion is Orthodox Christian contradicts having the images of Homer, Plato, Alexander and many others who were Olympic worshipers. In the text itself it is highlighted the religion item and it is enough. Plus, there are a tiny minority of Greeks who even at present are not Orthodox Christians. Periptero (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Edits by User:Pensionero
This user keeps removing the estimate for 3,000,000 Greek Americans (both logged in and as an IP [3]), which is sourced to the U.S. Department of State, claiming that it is "false information" and that "2 million Greeks that don't know they are Greeks don't exist" or something like that. Notwithstanding that this claim is ludicrous (of course Greek Americans "know" that they have Greek ancestry, duh!), the figure is sourced. The information is verifiable and there is some kind of fact checking at the State Department, so the figure meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS and should stay. Athenean (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit difficult to tell exactly what's going on just from the revert edit summaries, but it looks like a conflict of reliable sources. You say est. 3M from the State Dept. source. He says 1/1.5M from 2000 census and 2009 census bureau estimate. Is that right? I haven't looked at the sources myself, but, if so, isn't the answer to simply quote a range with a note explaining the source conflict? Or is that too easy? DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the pre-Pensionero version includes both the census and U.S. State Dept. figures, with a footnote clarifying that the State Dept. figure is an estimate for any Greek ancestry. Pensionero simply keeps removing the State figure, but I think as long as State Dept. meets WP:V, the removal is unwarranted. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see now. What I suggested is actually what you are defending. I think you are right of course. But having said that, I think instinctively the census information is going to be more accurate - the Census Bureau's main job is to generate this kind of data. Whereas the figure in the State Dept. Background Note is just a passing comment, and is not a major part of the note. Could esily be incorrect. But without a tertiary/secondary source discussing that point, it's not for us to make that judgment call. I think it needs to stay as it is until a third source clarifies the difference. 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Incidentally, pretty much all this user does is go around and reduce the population figures of ethnic groups [4] other than his own, while inflating those of his own (Bulgarians). Athenean (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't impossible to there are 3 million Greeks in USA when census show results of 1.3 million, where these 3 million people declared that they are Greeks, isn't census the counting of the population? Pensionero (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Census doesn't catch everyone. Now, I've had quite enough of your POV-pushing, going around reducing the numbers of ethnic groups other than your own, while inflating those of your own. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That is unpossible if there were 1.3 million catched and 2 million not catched Greeks US 300 million population would be billion not catched on census? And stop with your manipulations telling the people that I am reducing the numbers of ethnic groups, you should give at least one more example besides this edit on Albanians, in which I didn't count the only ancestral Albanians in Turkey. Pensionero (talk) 16:38, 01 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is we just don't know why there's a difference between the two sources. There could be a good explanation. For example, the census is "self-declared" i.e it's up to the individual whether they want to declare Greek ancestry. Some may not have declared it. It's therefore not absolute fact. The number in the State dept. document may be derived from some sort of statistical extrapolation using immigration numbers, and may be more accurate. Or you could be right and it's just wrong. But we don't have enough information to know. That's why Wikipedia is based on reporting what WP:RS say and not WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean, a census does not count everybody, any demographer would know that. Some census' only count country of birth, whilst others are outdated, or most likely people declare themselves as "White other". This user is also removing sourced information on Turkish topic's (e.g. Turks in Germany). They argue that newspaper articles are not reliable yet also remove academic sources (books and journals) as well- when they don't "like" the academic estimate of course. Articles should show a range of sources... there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area.Turco85 (Talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As "there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area" The estimate of census bureau still exist, it shows estimated number higher than the census 2000. These 3 million are not true and you know it, but however. Pensionero (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
"Related" groups, for the n-th time
I don't know when and how the "reated groups" field crept back into the infobox, but I'm pretty certain it should go out again. The "related" field is essentially deprecated (see background discussion here and here), because it almost invariably involves WP:OR in deciding on an arbitrary set of criteria of what to include. There simply is no clearly defined academic consensus concept about what "relationship" between ethnic groups even means. In the present case, we had a hodgepodge of groups, most of which aren't even "related to Greeks" in any possibly meaningful way, because they simply are Greeks themselves. The field was so chaotic that some editors felt the need of having a disclaimer to go with it [5]. An extremely awkward solution, which just goes to demonstrate how untenable the whole concept was. The comment itself was a paradigm case of unsourced OR. Infoboxes should only be for information that is undoubtably factual. Anything that is in need of any kind of hedging, disclaimers, attribution or explanation should never be in an infobox. If the status of those groups is interesting, treat it in the article, in proper prose. Fut.Perf.☼07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: for the record, the field seems to have been re-introduced by an anon IP here [6], and then expanded by another anon here [7] and by another newish contributor here, all of this without any discussion or even edit summaries. Fut.Perf.☼07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It is already the nth time. I wonder where was I the previous n-1 times. Regardless, I agree. Chalk one up on the dubious merits of infoboxes. I can't prove it, but there is something in the infobox make-up which promotes this type of WP:OR. Dr.K.λogosπraxis08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Image of the lead
I suggest to use table for images, like that of Persians and Turkish people articles, so each name would be placed exactly under its corresponding image, and also it is far easier to edit... --Z15:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yet another new fashion in infoboxes. How about just getting rid of the whole gallery instead? It really serves no useful purpose, and pushes a lot of other infobox content that is a lot more useful far down the screen. If infoboxes are meant to "provide the an overview about the most basic facts about a topic at a single glance", then I really don't know how the current box does anything like it. Fut.Perf.☼16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's pretty unsophisticated. IMHO, these sort of galleries always makes a country (any country) look Ruritanian ("look at what we've done.We're not as insignificant as you thought"). I stress any country...I'm not particularly referring to this gallery. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the appropriate venue to raise this issue would be some sort of centralized discussion on the subject, e.g. over at the WikiProject Ethnic Groups or something like that, not this talkpage. But if I remember correctly, there was such a debate over there a while back and the result was inconclusive, with a majority of people in favor of keeping the galleries. Athenean (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but the wikiproject discussion has no central authority in deciding this. We could still form a local consensus about this article – and, if we do so, possibly set a positive example for others. Fut.Perf.☼18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
@Athenean: a strange comment. These galleries are not centrally imposed, despite their ubiquity. There is no reason why consensus on a particular article couldn't remove the gallery. In fact, what goes on in other articles is no argument for keeping it here per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Noone talked about centrally imposing these collages/galleries. We all know that Wikipedia is a fairly decentralised project. From Athenean's comment I gather that there is no general consensus against the use of these collages on a project-wide basis. There is no reason to assume that consensus for this article will be any different. As far as this collage being crap or not, the ubiquitous nature of these collages on so many articles shows that a lot of people like this construction and go to great lengths to produce it. Calling it crap may not be the most politic way of describing such widespread consensus and established practice on such a large scale. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who called it crap? I said it was unsophisticated. (Or are you getting confused by the pre-existing shortcut title?) DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I read with dismay that Pyrros Dimas was placed in the infobox by a majority vote. This is very sad, it just proves that the majority of people in Greece/Europe/the world are illiterate boors, ready to testify that the most influential (and I'm choosing my words very carefully here) opera singer of all time is somehow less worthy of mention than an athlete of dubious pharmacological status, who distinguished himself by lifting very heavy metal objects over his head in a particular manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.183.199 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
...
if i'm greek, i'll burn my own home....
if i'm not greek, hehe ...hehe..run baby, no wait don't run....let's do this slowly...ur way...slow painful..end..u like that.....come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.98.51 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Greeks in the US
If the 1980 US census showed 959.856 Greeks and the 1990 US census 1.110.292 Greeks and the 2000 US census 1.153.295, how then does the US state department come up with 3 million Greek Americans? The US census has an ancestry,religion and language code. If you are not ticking the boxes it means you are not Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Look Athenean, I hate making this personal but you don't own wikipedia. stop deleting sourced material. That is against wikipedia policy. It is very clear that ancient greeks and modern greeks are not the same thing - we wouldn't claim that ancient egyptians and modern egyptians are the same so stop pushing your POV. Ottomanist (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Athenean was right to revert your addition. Regardless of what the sources say, your verbiage is wildly out of line with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and original research policies. I have not yet encountered an example of an edit that begins with "it should be noted that" that runs afoul of these two policies (not guidelines, but bright line, non-negotiable policies), and this one is no different. I haven't even bothered to look at the sources (although I will try to access them) because the wording is unquestionably inappropriate. Horologium(talk)02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If the source does support the statement (which I can't comment on) then it could certainly find a place somewhere in the article, but not in the POV-pushing it was entered. Something more along the lines of "It has been suggested by X that..." would be far more appropriate, though WP:FRINGE should of course be kept in mind.Euchrid (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what happened to assuming good faith. I have provided sourced material which you can edit to make it sound more professional but you cannot delete it. Please respect some etiquette rules. Ottomanist (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, such 'verbiage' is a relic of the past i.e., that modern-Greeks are related to the Ancient Greeks. So provide sources and stop editing sourced material - Ottomanist (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here, but users who aren't involved in the talk - neither have they checked out the sources, are coming on undoing edits, what's going in, who's making them do this? - Ottomanist (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The source is negligible. You appear to have a belief that a modern nation needs to be pure with its ancestors not having mixed to claim descent from the antique race. Look at a fictional scenario: let's assume that a few thousand people in northern Finland begin to call themselves Thracians and revive the old language. You would absolutely justified in claiming these are not descended from the original Thracians; a break in the language, a different location and no continuity of any cultural trait. Hellenic culture and civilisation has been continuous for millennia AND on the very same territory. Yes people come and people go, Greeks from the past became Slavicised, Albanianised, Ottomanised, basically anything they wanted - outsiders married Greeks and bore children who called themselves Greek and so on, BUT this just means people have assimilated. It has never been the case that the language and culture was ever abandoned only to be picked up later by Illyrians and Slavic people. Greeks feature in every census taken throughout history and I doubt even the ancient Egyptians and Greeks were PURE in that their ancestors did not mix. I am sorry Ottomanist but this is a ridiculous declaration from you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Also - as for a revival in nationalist spirit, well this is more to do with the way of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure a few people adopted Hellenic identity and maybe some Greeks chose something else; we know that the Orthodox-dominated powerful figures condemned non-Christian Greeks to abandoning their Greek past but this is far from supporting the claim that today's people are not "necessarily" descended from the ancient. What is "necessary"? People are or are not something. By identifying as German, you automatically inherit German history and everything attributed to it, it doesn't matter what your ancestors were. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let everyone know that I've reported Ottomanist and the disruption he is causing at WP:AE. Not that it matters at this point, but for the record I even checked the sources he uses and they predictably state nothing of the kind (because no scholar worth his salt would write something like that). Athenean (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop claiming you've read the book:
Source 1 - Atsuko Ichijo, Gordana Uzelac, 'When Is the Nation?: Towards An Understanding of Theories Of Nationalism,' p. 182 explains very concisely:
"The western institutions transplanted into the newborn Greek state, although alien to the traditional Greek society of the early 19th century (…) official state discourse as well as that of intellecutals affirmed the importance of the 'ancient glorious past' in the conception of the modern Greek nation…the construction of Greek identity was completed through the integration of the byzantine period into the historic trajectory of the nation…the 'invention' of such a united and unique community was pursued throughout the 19th centiry through the state educational and cultural projects."
Source 2 - William Safran, 'The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion, and Politics,' p. 148, explains in more detail that:
"Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and relgions "
"Even though the 20th century construction of an exclusive ethno-national Greek identity legitimating the modern Greek state was relitively recent, religion, more specifically Eastern (Greek) Orthodoxy, was a contentious issue from the outset..."
"At the time of greek independence in 1829, the Greek nation was conceptualized as a resuscitated byzantium- a Christianized ottoman Empire - that would incorporate a multiplicity of religions, cultures and ethnicities. The premises of the Greek nation and of natioanlist ideology, which were contested among nationlist ideologues during the 18th century, were resolved only gradually…"
This is proof that you haven't even read the works you claim to have seen. I will revert the edit very soon unless you can bring another source to show that modern greeks are related to the ancient ones. Ottomanist (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Ottomanist, if I see, in this article is a chapter 1.8 titled Modern (Greeks). There is a sentence as follows: ... While most Greeks today are descended from Greek-speaking Romioi (Roman) 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.[97][98]... You can add your text somewhere there. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This is nothing more than wishful interpretation of the sources. They don't go anywhere near supporting the tendentious wording "It should be noted however, that modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks". The passages quoted make no statement regarding the relatedness of modern Greeks to ancient Greeks. In fact, ancient Greece is hardly even mentioned. The only mention of it that I see is that the ancient past plays an important role in Greek identity, i.e. the exact opposite of what Ottomanist is claiming. There is a section already discussing the relationship between ancient and modern, the last thing we need is tendentiously worded POV-pushing in the lede that is based on a false interpretation of sources. Athenean (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Ottomanist and the quotes are talking about two different things. The quotes Ottomanist offers are clearly about the construction of the modern [nationalist] identity. That's old news (since Elie Kedourie and many others): throughout Europe in the 18th/19th century that was a process that was going on everywhere. But there can be a self-conscious construction of "national identity" whether or not there was any lack of "relatedness" to the past. There's nothing in those quotes which comments on that. Apart from that, the other problem with Ottomanist's edit is what is meant by "modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks"? Genetically? Culturally? Linguistically? Geographically? It's actually pretty meaningless as it is. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, the citation made fun reading and is certainly music to the ears of anti-Greeks, but it is selective and evidently contrived to bring down a modern nation on scanty negligible pretences. Assimilations have occurred all through history, no doubt even the antique nations had mixed with outsiders whilst many abandoned their own nation to join another. What the source fails to explain is how Hellenic culture, language and tradition survived all those millennia, was never abandoned in that it had to be revived, people had been identifying as Greek throughout the transitional period, and suddenly we have pseudo-Greeks? Really? Then which people walking this Earth have the "real" ancient Greek seed? The Ukrainians? Half of the homogenous Brazilians? If so how did they end up where they did and how did these "new" non-Greeks successfully replace the old and all without a break in Hellenic identity? The claim is absurd. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't read the quotes as "anti-Greek" or could be used to support anything "anti-Greek". I think you may be reading too much into them. The same process was going on everywhere at that time. The quotes are focusing on the concept of the "nation-state" (any nation state) and the underlying ideology supporting the nation-state being new inventions - which they were. What was going on in Greece was "normal"! DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Read again "Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and religions.." - Greek nationalism was initially territorial - now we have the claim that everyone is 'Greek' which is absolute nonsense according to all scholars of nationalism (since Greek is taken as a sort of model of how a nation is constructed using myths, not based on 'true' ethnic continuity).
There was no 'revival' of nationalism in the 19th century since nationalism originates in that century (some users are so missing the point it's unbelievable).
This is historical fact which all modern scholars note. Again, this is not a place to publicise state propaganda. - Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
More sources: Roderick Beaton, David Ricks, 'The Making of Modern Greece', p. 88
"...The reinterpreted discourse of resurrent provided the traditional sections of society with a comforting matrix for coming to terms not only with the idea of insurrection but also with one of its prerequisites that uderpiness the agenda of the revolutionaries: the myth of Hellenic descent….
"...for the people, instead, the reinterpreted discourse of resurrection furnished and ideological basis which fascilitated an acculturation between the myth of Hellenic descent that nationalists upheld and the sense of ..."
The naive essentialist notion that "Greekness" is some sort of eternal, unchanging ideal through the centuries and that Greeks form an monolithic, unambiguous, and uniquely defined unit regardless of time and place is clearly nonsense suitable at best for little children parading in Evzone costumes in schoolyards. Greekness has meant different things at different times and places to different people: there are continuities and discontinuities, there are revivals and there are renunciations; there are splits and there are mergers; and there are different kinds of Greekness. On that, I think, I agree with you, Ottomanist.
On the other hand, to reduce the rich complexity of all this to the crude and imprecise statement that "...the ancient Greeks are not necessarily related to the modern-day Greeks" is just silly. What do the weasel words "not necessarily" mean? What does "related" mean? (linguistically? genetically? geographically? politically?) As for "such a linkage was only made during the age of Nationalism in the early 19th century", that is simply incorrect. "Linkages" between ancient and modern Greeks/Greece/Greek have been made many times, at many times, e.g. by Gemistus Pletho. They are not all the same; Plethon, Ypsilantis, Korais, et al., each had very different conceptions of Greekness and the connection between ancient and modern.
The current article section Identity, Modern and Ancient is embarrassingly simplistic and should be improved, using good-quality modern scholarship, not tendentious cherry-picking. See for example Paschalis M. Kitromilides's article "On the intellectual content of Greek nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the Great Idea" [8] which carefully deconstructs the way 19th-century writers appropriated Byzantine history to create a modern narrative. And that is just one aspect of the story. --Macrakis (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The problematic behavior by Ottomanist continues. This wording [9] in addition to being tendentious and unencyclopedic ("However...complicated affair"), is nowhere to be found among sources and as such is WP:OR. The point about Greece being inhabited by diverse ethnic groups is repeated immediately below. This source [10] is completely misquoted, in intellectually dishonest fashion. It doesn't go anywhere near saying that it was only during the 19th century that the ancient past was revived. Far from it in fact. Rather, all it states is that the ancient past played an important part in the nation-building in the 19th century. There are many examples of the ancient past being glorified in previous episodes of Greek history, e.g. by Gemistus Pletho in the 15-16 centuries, and even earlier during the Byzantine era. This source [11] is also misused. The meaning of "Myth of Hellenic descent" in this source has nothing to do with the territorial definition of the Greek nation mentioned by the source in the preceding sentence. This is WP:SYNTHing. Moreover, that the author use the wording "myth of Hellenic descent]] does not mean that they believe that the modern Greeks do not descend in the least from the inhabitants of ancient Greece. Ottomanist misunderstands or misuses the source to try to imply a complete lack of demographic continuity between ancient and modern Greeks, which I suspect has been his goal all along. Athenean (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think some are becoming increasingly guilty of ORin. The sources are very clear. Greece came to be inhabited by many ethnic, religious groups during the long rule of the Ottomans. During the 19th century nationalists began contracting a myth of common descent to bind together these different groups. The sources above show this very, very clearly. Moreover, Kitromilides is a brilliant source and in no way has he (a Greek!) been misused. As time passes, I will incorporate his reputable, scholarly accounts into more of the article. - Ottomanist (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a myth of common descent. Clearly you or and your trusted authors have no idea about what ethnicity is. One is Greek, Albanian, Kurdish or Danish on account of the fact that he declares this to be his ethnic group. It cannot be denied just because both his parents may have been Iraqi-Arab - because they too would only be Arab on account that that is how they declare. The bloodline of an individual is not the same thing as the pedigree of an actual nation. When you assimilate, you leave behind the old and you adopt the new. All the sources testify is that many people adopted Greek ethnicity in the 19th century, what about the those already Greek? Do the sources deny that these people existed? Of course not. So over time, the people mix and soon their past is forgotten. I know many patriotic Greeks (with some of my family living in Bitola, I often go to Florina when local), they are all Greek through and through but not one of them claims only to be descended from Hellenic stock. To confirm this, he would first have to trace his ancestry, but what would the point be? If he discovered that one double-great grandparent was Bulgarian but chose Greek ethnicity, should he now consider himself less Greek? Is that why his ancestor assimilated? Just so that generations down someone reverts to former ethnic status? The information on the sources is not sufficient to make a claim "today's Greeks are not descended from ancient". If it were the case however that Greeks became assimilated by surrounding nations with the last speaker perishing back in the 12th century, a fate similar to many great nations to have existed in the region (eg. Avars, Thracians, etc.), and then from 1784 a group of Albanian-speaking communities revive the old Greek culture based on where they were living then you would be 100% justified in claiming the modern do not descend from the old because you would have verification that the modern Greeks descended from Albanian dissidents whilst the ancient were absent from 1160. But this is not the case is it? Hellenic culture has at all times been present. A Greek community has always thrived so there has been something there for newcomers to embrace, and upon doing so, they adopt a Greek past - because a national history is the property of the entire nation. If you support a football team, you'd still say "we won that trophy 100 years ago" even though you mightn't have been around yourself. So any modern Greek can feel comfortable that he has some descent in the ancient. And anyway, if Greeks are subject to a "common descent myth", can you name a modern ethnic group whose members are pure and have never assimilated outsiders? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, and we can continue this discussion based on our views on my talk page, but the sources say otherwise. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If they do then they are unreliable because the explanation I have given above covers everything. I doubt they actually do "say otherwise", they probably give what I told you but in different words and you've taken a different vantage point. Instead of realising that people assimilated, you took the angle of modern Greeks who "may or may not" have full Greek descent. And I did say, none of the claims this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@ macrakis, thanks for your insightful words. @Athenian, these ad hominem attacks must cease, please concentrate on the content not the user. I will edit this page to take in all that has been said soon, - Ottomanist (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ethnic group versus nation
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who peruses the article that it discusses the ethnic group known as Greeks, not citizens of Greece (i.e. the Greek nation). This is why the Turks of Western Thrace are never mentioned in the article. This is because they consider themselves ethnic Turks, and are not considered as ethnic Greeks by anyone. The editor who added "Islam" to the infobox had in mind Greek Muslims. While they are Greek by ethnicity, they have largely assimilated into their respective societies (mostly Turkish) and no longer consider themselves ethnic Greeks, nor are they considered as such by other ethnic Greeks. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC);
I posted on your talk, so please ignore. I suppose the first point is almost every European "peoples" article is explicitly about the ethnicity & the citizenship. Why would this article take such a narrowly different tack? Secondly, it seems particularly strange for here since the Greek govt. doesn't recognise Turks of Western Thrace as a Turkish ethnic minority. From that article: "Since 1983, the Greek government refers to the Turkish community as Greek Muslims or Hellenic Muslims, and does not recognise a separate Turkish minority in Western Thrace.[2]"
Not almost every article on European "peoples" is both about ethnicity and citizenship. Some, such as Irish people, Russians and Italians are explicitly about the ethnic group. Others, such as Serbs and Norwegians, are about the ethnic group but misuse the term "nation". Yet others, such as Spanish people, French people, are indeed both about the ethnic group and the nation. If you ask me, the situation is an intractable mess. There is no consistency across these articles, and it is pointless to look for it. What matters here is that the way this article was written, it is exclusively about the ethnic group known as Greeks. Greek citizens of non-Greek ethnicity are prominently discussed in Greece, the article on the Greek nation. Given the division-of-content between these articles, I think it would be ludicrous to include Turks of Western Thrace here, not to mention that it would duplicate the content found in Greece. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Italians actually follows the ethnic group & citizenship model. I think there is a substantial majority of the European articles that do this. I don't see the logic of the narrower definition given that it is contrary to the normal English language usage of the word i.e. it would always have a dual meaning of X ethnicity and X citizenship. Howsoever, it's obviously the consensus here as the article is more or less written in that way (although I notice you had to excise "nation"!) and I accept that.
As for "Greek Muslims", the Turks of Western Thrace article has decently sourced statements that the Greek government considers them as Greeks and explicitly not ethnic Turks. It seems very strange to me that there shouldn't be commentary on this in this article i.e. recognition that this is the Greek government position but that this is incorrect for XYZ reasons - supported by reliable sources of course. It seems a noteworthy point for this article in itself.
On duplication: I don't see unnecessary duplication in say France and French people with regard to ethnic minorities, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
Hello! I have see what you guys have written, but I think that saying they are assimilated is something you don't really know, but you guess. Greek Muslims have been a historical and relatively large group, not a recent immigrant group or recent converts like in western Europe. And you suppose they are assimilated, well then again I could suppose that, on the basis of DNA studies, Turks in western/northern Anatolia and eastern Thrace are Turkicized Muslims of Greek ancestry, which would outnumber the total number of "ethnic" (identifying) Greeks in the world combined. But they are not included in the Greek Muslims count because they now belong to another identity (Turks), but the "ethnic" Greek Muslims are so because they are specifically Greek identifying (many, if not most, times still speaking Greek). So they are, by all counts, part of Greek people in that they have kept their identity. Now I am not saying you are like this, Athenean, but sometimes I think certain strongly Orthodox Christian groups (Greeks, Armenians, etc.) dislike having to say there are Muslims within their ethnicity/identity. For example, I tried to add the mention of Islam as being practiced by Armenian-speaking "mostly Hamsheni Armenians only" on the Armenians article, yet this was treated as "vandalism" or just outright rejected by Armenian editors there. So I think, in my humble opinion, that there is some anti-Islam sentiment governing the non-inclusion of historic and numerically significant Muslims within these ethnicities.--Fernirm (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be talking about Greek Muslims. My point was about Turks of Western Thrace. I haven't looked at the sources in Greek Muslims. If the sources support the contention that their Greek ethnic identity has been maintained and they have not been assimilated, then I can't see why they would not be included in this article.
As for the Turks of Western Thrace, in this sort of potentially sensitive area I find it always best to stick closely to what the reliable sources say (whatever one thinks of them personally) rather than go on personal knowledge. (Well I suppose that's what we're always supposed to do, but it's particularly important here). My starting point is that reliable sources say that the group covered by the article Turks of Western Thrace are not regarded by the Greek government as ethnic Turks but as Greeks who happen to be Muslim. No one seems to challenge that bare fact so I think there should be some recognition of this in this article, but I wouldn't want to go beyond that narrow formulation i.e. it is simply the Greek government's position. If there are reliable sources to say that this is a position for political reasons and, in effect, no one really thinks that, (including the self-identification of the group themselves) then that should be said as well. That's all. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The Indus Valley?
There are still approximately 100,000 Athenians that fled during ancient times living the mountainous areas between Afghanistan and India. None of the Helleno-Indus people or descendants of the Seleucid are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.47 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The Diaspora
Some countries are not listed in the global diaspora, most notably Eygpt and Iran. Perhaps the data cannot be obtained but the populations left in Africa on the whole should be researched and explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.47 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations: Greeks in Albania
In the section Modern Greeks in this article is clarification with added sources: 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.[97][98] Jingiby (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, far more Greeks today speak English, French, German and Russian that any of those languages, all of which are in rapid decline among Greeks. Athenean (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but non of them is mother-tongue to a part of the native Greeks in contrast of the mentioned above Aromanian, Arvanitika, Slavic and Turkish. Jingiby (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Euclid
How come Euclid is not in the pictures gallary of the Greek in the infobox? He is the father of geometry. He is absolute a very significant figure. And he indeed is more significant than some of figures in the gallary right now. I suggest we need to remove one of the figure in the gallary in the infobox and put Euclid in.65.128.190.136 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
racism
you know writing, that modern greek people are a mix of albanian,vlachs,slavs and turks is a bit racist and i'll tell you the reason. Greece has experienced a significant number which has created racism between greeks and their neighboring countries. there are a few people who are half greek and half-albanian,slav,turk or so. also in the ottoman empire many greek women were taken by the turks in anatolia, and many children were taken and raised by turks as turks, so why don't you write that modern turkish people are mixed with greeks? every tribe in the world has been mixed with other tribes, but you insist that other countries are perfect tribes and greeks are a mixture of many tribes. that's racism, and whoever wrote it should be banned from writing. greek people havw the same charachteristics as the ancient greeks, of course not all of them but thr majority does. -- a greek guy who's tired of reading propagandas like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.63.49 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Cyprus population figures
Athenean just changed the note about the census figure for Cyprus to say "citizens... of the Republic of Cyprus" rather than "citizens... of south Cyprus" [12]. I don't see how this is correct. The figures quoted are those of the population in the southern, Greek-controlled part of the island alone – and rightly so, as it would make little sense to include the Turkish Cypriots of the "TRNC" in a statistics of ethnic "Greeks". However, the Turkish Cypriots too, at least in theory, are citizens of the "Republic of Cyprus", according to its own constitution, are they not? So, calling that figure the number of citizens of the Republic must surely be wrong? Fut.Perf.☼00:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, my thinking was that "citizens" implies a state. The state in question here is the Republic of Cyprus. "South Cyprus" is not a state, therefore it doesn't have citizens. Now, Turkish Cypriots are "in theory" (i.e. de jure) citizens of the Republic, but in practice they are not. We could change it to "citizens of Cyprus" if you think that would be better. Athenean (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No, "citizens of Cyprus" even more clearly implies the population of the whole island, which is not what the figure is. "Citizens in (rather than of) south Cyprus" might work? Fut.Perf.☼06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Mmmm, no, saying "citizens 'in'" leaves it vague. Citizens of what? Citizens are citizens of a state, the only state this could be is the Republic of Cyprus. The total population of the island is something over a million, that of the Republic something over 800,000, so 690,000 sounds about right for the ethnic Greeks in the Republic of Cyprus [13]. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I'm not doubting the accurateness of the figure. But you apparently fail to see the purpose of the note in the box at that point. It is saying that the Republic's census does not distinguish between ethnicities, so instead of a cited figure for actual ethnic Greeks the box is using the total figure of Cypriot citizens in south Cyprus (assuming, obviously, that the overwhelming majority of them are in fact ethnic Greeks). So, how do you break down "citizens of the Republic of Cyprus who live in the part of Cyprus controlled by the Republic of Cyprus" into something short enough to fit in the box? Fut.Perf.☼07:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Still shorter than the rest of the descriptors such as: "The Greek and Cypriot governments do not collect information about ethnic self-determination at the national censuses." Also bear in mind that while brevity is desirable it should not be pursued at the expense of vague descriptions like "south Cyprus" which although you intend it as purely geographical it nevertheless has political implications which make it onomatologically invalid and POV. After all the "south" is 2/3 of the island. Calling it "south" debases its relative size and political, legal and onomatological international cachet. As you very well know this area of the world is highly conflicted with many difficult and intractable problems. As such, geographical terminology carrying political implications should be avoided. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
why does citizens only imply a state or country (as i am guessing you mean as well)?.. it is also used for towns, cities etc,Anyway i am trying to thing of a proper way but all that es to mind is just Cyprus, maybe if you use the way the people of the Country refer to themselves? as in leaving in Cyprus, they dont say in this and that part of Cyprus, and they are Cypriots not Greek Cypriots, although i have no idea thats allowed, that would be my suggestion. Anyway nice article! Pouloudi (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Number in Greece
Is anyone able to provide information about the number in Greece. The CIA and the current citation include in Greeks all who are not foreigners, while the rest articles in Wikipedia include only those who are enumerated ethnically as such on the census. To make it clear I am giving an example: in Romania there are 19 million natives who are not foreigners, but according to the census there 16,869,816 of these are Romanians and the last is used in Romanians article, the rest 2 million are Hungarians in Romania and Roma in Romania who are not immigrants but are part of the Minorities of Romania and are born there. In Greeks article all who are not foreigners are included in the figure, so this article refers to the total population of Greece. So is anyone able to provide a figure of the Greeks excluding the Minorities of Greece? If no the article's introduction should be changed, it refers to the nation not the ethnic group. Such figure is necessary because currently the comparision between the figures of this article and the rest in Wikipedia is inflated in favour of this article as all people from Greece and Cyptus are counted as Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.81.170 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Well i made a search and actually in Greece they either include everyone that is in the country at the time of census, everyone who is of Greek Nationality (including imigrants which have the nationality) or whoever is a resident. the link is the following if someone can make something of it be my guest http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-census2011. It is the the statistics Authority of Greece. Hope is helpfull if not lets hope in the future they do a better census.(hope it is ok to put the link here) Pouloudi (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If the Cypriot government "does not collect information about ethnic self-determination", where does the 650k figure come from? — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In this article the term Romioi used in the section on the modern history of Greeks, it is followed in pararenthises by the direct translation (Romans). The term Romioi is discussed in the section on the Byzantine Greeks it mentions the fusion of Greek and Roman cultures, and later goes on to say Greek speakers adopted the term Romioi(romans) to refer to themselves. In the section on Ottoman Greeks, the term is used without the translation Romans beside it.
I think that this should be the case in the section on modern Greeks the translation of Romioi as Romans should be limited to the articles where the history of the term is discussed and it is clearly distiguished from Latins. While the term Romioi is translated to Romans the terms are clearly distinct. In English the term Romans is immediately associated with the Latin speaking peoples of ancient Italy. It also can be used to distinguish Roman citizens but the Latin connection none the less remains. However, the term Romioi alone has no such connotations. Romioi refers exclusively to a political and social identity, not a cultural one. While there was a fusion of classical cultures around that time the Greeks remained a distinct group using their own language, alphabet, traditions,and later their own expression of Christianity.
I don't think adding the translation "Romans" after Romioi is necessary. It can also lead to confusion if someone doesn't already know the context or fails to fully absorb the material in the byzantine section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.189.125 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Greeks in the Netherlands
According to the dutch immigration agency there are 14.241 Greeks in the Netherlands.
The names of the Greeks section is too large and unnecessary - this is not a mythology or ancient history article and they go into too much detail - particularly given that an article under the same name exists already. The page is huge already so I propose that section be reduced in size. It is interesting that there are many names (and why this is so could be discussed) but not so much detail on all of them.
Also what's with the external links? Can the person who applied the tag identify the offending links and I will try to rework them.
The origins section (of Proto-Greek speakers, not Greeks genetically) does not represent a widely accepted academic view. Generally, the migration route is considered to have occured through the west coast of the Black sea into the Balkans. I understand that Hamp expressed an opinion, but he is alone on that. I am not saying we should not feature an alternative view, but right now the section consists of only that and nothing else. There's a whole armada of scholars (including Mallory) that have written about it. Fkitselis (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The specific map, appears to be a product of wp:or, without a proper citation. I also notice that for an unexplained reason Attica, Boetia and vast regions of Asia Minor aren't part of the Greek speaking area (such as Iconium which retained a Greek speaking community and was the center of a bishopric that era).Alexikoua (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexius_I.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
