Wikipedia

Talk:Greeks/Archive 8

< Talk:Greeks
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Maleschreiber in topic Ethnographic Map
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Greeks, are of course, the oldest ethnic group in Europe and one of the oldest in the world, but I think it would be nice if we had one or two living people in the infobox. Here are a few people to consider:

  • Yanni (I'm not in favor of including modern musicians in infoboxes, but I think Yanni is quite known in the world, at least he is in Armenia and probably in many other countries),
  • George Michael (only half-Greek, with probably no Greek identity, but still good to consider),
  • Sakis Rouvas (again, I'm not much into pop music, but still a possible candidate)
  • Elena Paparizou (same as above)
  • Queen Sofía of Spain (is she an ethnic Greek?)

And what about Elia Kazan? Does he qualify as a Greek? I'm asking because there doesn't seem to be any Greeks from the diaspora (that had no direct association with Greece/Cyprus), except Maria Callas, who was born in the US, but lived in Greece. --Երևանցի talk 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yanni is a good idea, Elia Kazan too. I'm not sure about George Michael & Queen Sofia (both seem to be ethnic Greeks), while I believe Rouvas and Paparizou are just one of many modern era singers (1950-). I admit this is a difficult decision.Alexikoua (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We might also use this as an opportunity to consider whether we really want such an image collage in the first place and what its encyclopedic benefit is. This article might have a chance of being the first to resist the fad and decide not to do a collage just because all others are doing it too. Just sayin... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If only! Agree with Fut.Perf. that it would be nice to get rid of the collage. Maybe we could start a new trend? We could avoid all the edit wars around in the "ethnic articles" of Wikipedia about how many and whom to include. It will probably never happen (and "Greeks" will get a new collage with 63 faces), but it is a nice dream. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Queen Sofía is only half Greek, therefore I wouldn't add her. Same thing with George Michael. Elia Kazan was an ethnic Anatolian Greek, but he's deceased, and you mentioned wanting living people. That leaves me with Yanni, Sakis, and Elena. I think Yanni is the most popular, but I still think they wouldn't "fit in" with the current collage, and we could probably find better options (perhaps non-singers). What about Nikos Sarganis? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
While the sentiment of getting rid of the infobox has its merits, I would prefer if this article were not used as an encyclopaedic guinea pig. Perhaps we can start from any other number of countries and see how that goes. I wonder why the Greek article presents such a tempting target for innovations and experiments. I also think that the proposing editors should lead by example by modifying their applicable countries of origin first. That should set an unmistakable, and perhaps irresistible, trend. Just a thought, obviously. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


I just want to clarify my intentions in order to avoid possible misunderstandings. I'm here to improve the collage of this article's infobox so that it would better represent the Greek people and their history from antiquity to modern times.
@Fut.Perf.: There is a more or less of a consensus established that articles on ethnic groups should have collages of notables. If we remove the notables from this article, then we should remove collages of notables from all ethnic groups articles, which I doubt will be acceptable. As Dr.K. noticed, let's not "target [this article] for innovations and experiments".
That said. Does anyone disagree that Elia Kazan should be in the infobox? If anyone does, please speak up. And who should we replace him with? @Afro-Eurasian: I know he's dead, I'm just proposing his inclusion as a very significant Greek.
By the way, is Pyrros Dimas is bad candidate? He was removed some time ago. He is similar to Vitali Klitschko (he's included in the Ukrainians infobox), who is one of the greatest boxers of our time and he's also active in politics.
And what are your thoughts on Yanni? --Երևանցի talk 01:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Once more about the fundamental issue: what I'm seeing is not a "consensus" that articles on ethnic groups "should" have collages; what I'm seeing is a fad that has been spread through the wiki and has now led to the unfortunate situation that editors now feel "obliged" to have a collage for no other reason than that other articles are doing it too, making any serious consideration of whether such a collage is actually a good thing seemingly impossible. But there is in fact no requirement that all these articles should be handled the same way, so if we, here, on this article, were to come to a local consensus that we don't want one here, we'd be perfectly free to do so, and – beyond sending out the signal that this is possible – there would be absolutely no implied consequences for what would have to be done on other articles. Obviously, some article would have to be the first to do this, so why not this one? Dr.K.: this is not "targetting this article for experiments"; this is simply the only major ethnic group article that I've ever had a constant editorial interest in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how you know that other editors feel obliged to have a collage. What I see is that this trend, good or bad, has taken wide hold on Wikipedia and represents a wide practice or consensus or both across the project that such collages are desirable. The motives of the editors or how they felt while achieving this project-wide practice/consensus are things that cannot be reliably ascertained. In fact if I have to judge from the long and heated discussions which have occurred in many articles regarding the people to be included in the collages, many editors think that showcasing key people of an ethnic group is an important aspect of the information that should be in the article. It is my opinion that such prevalent and wide consensus has to be dealt with centrally at an appropriate forum, if a problem is perceived with the presence of collages, something which I personally do not see, neither have I seen any evidence of its existence in other articles. In fact I see quite the opposite given the care and energy spent by editors across the project in creating these collages and the energy they put in the discussions as to which people should be included in them. Therefore, if this widespread practice is to be challenged, I prefer the centralised approach rather than a piecemeal local approach which in the face of such widespread and accepted use across the project would deal with this matter effectively and fairly and would not be subject to hypothetical "local" consensuses which in the face of the wider community consensus would only represent an aberration, if not a distortion, and would not be persuasive, even if we assume they existed, which I believe they do not. But I am not here to try to persuade you to change your mind, so let's just agree to disagree. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Then I think Elia Kazan is the best option thus far. Also, if my opinion is relevant, I like the use of collages. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion is relevant and welcome and thank you for providing it. As far as discussing any potential candidates for the collage, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this is an activity I normally do not engage in. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Athenian speechwriter, Isocrates, who was a contemporary of Socrates, espoused that "the word 'Greek' is not so much a term of birth as it is of mentality, and is applied to a common culture rather than of common descent." Likewise, the modern Greek poet and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1979, Odysseas Elytis, said that, "To be Greek means to feel and react in a certain way, nothing else; whether one is young or old, born here or there."

Yunanistan & Yunnan province in China is the word that is used in the Islamic and Asiatic world for ¨Greece¨. It comes from the words ¨Yunan¨ for Greek and the Islamic epithem ¨-stan¨ for country, just like on anglosaxonic and germanic languages we hear the word ¨-land¨ at the end of each nation´s name.58.165.183.114 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

17-24 million Greeks worldwide

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

If you count up the numbers on the (Greek diaspora) Wikipedia Page, it will give you 17,351,953.......If you look at the (Greek Orthodox Church) Wikipedia Page, it says 23-24 million.

Every Greek worldwide belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church me being one of them, this is the more official of the numbers, i have always heard that there is 23-25 million Greeks worldwide, the 14-17 never made sense and was too small of a number, Please Change the Total Population in the info box to 17-24. The link you have there does not exist anyway, so how can it be official? it was from 1990 anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.56.49 (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How often do you have to be told this? Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable sources. You can't simply do your own calculation on the basis of what is said in other Wikipedia articles. You need to find a published, reputable, printed source that says what the estimated number is. We currently have such a source, and it says 14-17. If you find one of equal or higher reliability that says something different, cite it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

14-17 million??

Greek diaspora: 17,351,953 (counted from the infobox on wikipedia) Greek Orthodox Church: 23-24 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church)

I don't know where these editors get 14-17 how is it that ethnic groups like the Italians have 140 Million people worldwide so this is obviously including people how are half Italian or a quarter Italian and are not citizens but have ethnicity. What do we count with every ethnic group? Some have different criteria. There is no way that their are 14-17 million people of Greek blood worldwide, I am of full Greek ethnicity born and raised in another country and every fellow Greek I speak to here seems to think there are 20 million plus Greeks worldwide.

This link has expired (Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present. Books.google.co.uk. Retrieved 2014-03-01.)

Where is the proof that there are 14-17 million worldwide this must be just Greek citizens not people like myself who could become a citizen if I wanted but i have no need and plus males have to join army in Greece if they become citizens. The number should be 17-24 Million, virtually every Greek person is Greek orthodox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.57.193 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You made this proposal before, then you got an answer to it explaining to you why it doesn't work that way (just above here), then you yourself removed that thread [1], then you just make that same proposal again. How stupid do you think we are? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So you guys have a source that has expired and its from 1990 and your telling me I don't know what I am talking about. How on earth can their be 14-17 million people worldwide of reported Greek ancestry? Italians 140 Million? come on now, their are no sources claiming either of us is correct, I cannot find anything, I am a proud Greek and do not like our ethnic group being under represented, your response to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.57.193 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What, my response to you being a proud Greek and not liking your group underrepresented? That response is obvious: go cry baby, nobody here cares. The only thing that counts in this project is sources, and if you can't be arsed to do the legwork and find better ones, nobody will take you seriously. I agree it's unsatisfactory that the current number isn't cited more properly, but it's still a valid source in principle, and until we have something better, it will stay. There are of course multiple book-length specialized studies of the Greek diaspora [2]; it can't be that difficult to find one that gives a decent estimate of its size. Here's one [3] that puts the diaspora at "up to 4 million", which fits reasonably well with our own per-country figures further down in the box. If you add the 11–12 million in Greece and Cyprus, that would leave us around 15–16 million total, right in the middle of the figure we're currently quoting. I've seen a figure of 5 million for the diaspora elsewhere. To get to a total of 23–24 million, as you have been suggesting, you'd need diaspora figures two to three times larger than these; I doubt you'll find that anywhere. As for the figure in Greek Orthodox Church, that one is entirely unsourced and lacks any breakdown into countries, so I wonder why you'd consider it in any way more trustworthy; however, keep in mind that it would include multiple non-Greek groups, such as Christian Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians or Albanians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been meaning to propose this for a long time but I keep forgetting. Would it be all right if we restored to lede to this earlier version [4] (i.e. the de-Gounarized version for those who know what I mean)? The current version contains a lot of unnecessary details (" although Greeks in Russia and Ukraine often also or instead belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, without this in any way undermining their distinct ethnic identity.") and repetition (..."historically established in the southern Balkan peninsula"....."always been centered on the southern parts of the Balkan peninsula"...."uniformly distributed between the southern part of the Balkan peninsula"). Athenean (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, indeed, de-Gounarize away please. I suppose the other intermediate changes seen in this [5] diff throughout the article (ref urls etc.) are largely okay though? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was only planning on strict de-Gounarization, without harming non-Gounaric edits. Athenean (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ionian/Pontus Greeks?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is a GA one, so I thought I better drop it here first. The article specifically focuses on the Greek ethnos, history, formation, identity, etc, which is perfect, but why has there been no mention of the Greek identity during the 200 yrs of Achaemenid rule in Asia Minor? Didn't that play a considerable role in the eventual uplead to the Greco-Persian Wars, and a "real" proof of a common Greek identity? There were numerous events during those years of rule that I believe could make a nice addition here. Or what about the "relatively" isolated native Greeks of Pontus. Anyway, I'd like to hear some opinions first. ;-)

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The number of greeks in albania

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a consensus about the number of greeks in albania,or not?or someone can change it ? Rolandi (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus, based on widely established western estimates.Alexikoua (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has been fully protected for three days (until 01:07 on 18 August) due to an edit war about population numbers that was reported at WP:AN3. If agreement is reached here on Talk, the protection might be lifted early. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox gallery, once more

Latest comment: 9 years ago33 comments5 people in discussion

I hate to bring this up again, but...

  • Until January 2011, there were just 5 images in the gallery [6].
  • In February 2011, there was a new collage of 25 [7].
  • In August 2013, the fixed collage format was replaced with the more flexible image array format. There were still 25 images [8].
  • In August 2014, there were 30 [9].
  • In February 2015, there were 35 [10].
  • As of August 2015, there are now 40 [11].

Can we stop this madness? Is there a natural law that per half year we have to expand this thing by one more row? Are we defenseless against this pattern of hyperinflation? 40 images means that on my laptop screen I now have to scroll down two entire screenfuls from the top of the page until I see any real content of the infobox. The most recent expansions were done by User:AuditoreEzio in December 2014 [12] and by User:Steverci in March 2015 [13], both without any talkpage discussion that I can find.

This whole gallery thing is a cancer that grows uncontrollably; if we can't get rid of the whole thing (which is thoroughly unencyclopedic and useless anyway), let's please at least cut it back to the somewhat more moderate size of 20 or 25. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you pinged me I'll give my thoughts. Most collages with 25-30 start around or after 1,000 AD, such as Germans or English people. Given that Greeks are an extent ancient race, it would be naturally logical for this collage to have more. Iranian peoples goes back to a similar date and has 56! I was originally just finding a replacement for Arianna Huffington, who's hardly culturally Greek, and found some other note worthies who should be listed. I agree no more should be added, so there is no cancer growing here. --Steverci (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the comparison with the Iranian case shows only one thing: the number of images in a box is not a function of how old a group is, but how much its associated editor community on Wikipedia is dominated by obsessive agenda-pushers. I'm going to cut this thing back to 20 or 25; people who keep mistaking obsessive image-tinkering for useful editing will have to be shown the door eventually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Your own opinion is not "longstanding consensus". When I made my changes half a year ago there were no objections, thus that was the last time consensus was achieved. It should stay that way in the meantime, and will continue to stay that way in the case of a no consensus. Not to mention you didn't even discuss which Greeks should even be removed, which you should at the very least do.
The Greek collage starts at 850 BC. Whereas the English, German, Italian, French, and Spanish collages start at 1100, 1122, 1265, 1412, and 1451, respectively. I see no problem with the template reflecting a 2,000 year difference. --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you have nothing but brute edit-warring to go for your position. Well, do as you please. I see that Romanians and Russians have finally gone ahead with setting a good example, showing that articles can happily get rid of the whole writched gimmick, so that's exactly what I'm going to propose for this article next. Will remove it by tomorrow unless I hear substantial objections from somebody other than Sterverci. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is really too big right now. Since all this additions were clearly of wp:ninja style, it would be better to limit the pictures as decoded in last concensus. I also can't understand why a number of personalities were added, for example what makes Paparizou so important (why not Moushouri/Vangelis for example?).Alexikoua (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That's another problem with these galleries. What are the NPOV reasons for inclusion. How are representatives of an ethnic group are chosen - and ancient, as well as medieval figures are dubious as they do not reflect the current nation-state's concept of 'ethnicity' - and on what merit? Why isn't a famous mass-murderer as relevant as a scientist, a super-model, a sportsperson, or a pop singer? Every time some new editor comes through and has WP:POV preferences for who should be in a gallery, a whole new bout of edit warring, section after section battling out a consensus is dedicated to what amounts to trivia, and editor time and energy is wasted on this rather than improving the article. This arises on every article about an ethnic group time and time again. This begs the question of whether it really meets with WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and really is WP:ITSINTERESTING. My take is that it's not particularly edifying... certainly not enough to make it worth the grief. In fact, image galleries aren't a parameter in the 'ethnic group' infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. Although I find your points well-taken, I think that such a gallery provides the reader with a pictorial sample of a representation of the evolution of the concept of Greeks through the millenia. I find this a worthy function. The previous version of the gallery was based on consensus, so we have to revert to the consensus version. Any new tampering with the gallery must achieve consensus on the talkpage. Such an approach should avoid edit-warring. For these reasons, I disagree with the removal of the gallery but I do agree that its current version is bloated and it must be trimmed back to the most recent consensus version. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
When was the last time any formal consensus about a particular selection of figures was formed here? It must have been a while ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was a long time ago, 2011 to be exact. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: I still don't understand how an ethnic group, their history and culture over millennia is defined by notables. The parameter reads as "image= ". How did it come about that an image - meaning any form of concept as to a representation of an ethnic group - became notable people? How does one go about even forming consensus outside of personal preferences. Wikipedia is an objective (neutral) encyclopaedic resource, not a subjective one. Per WP:TITLE, this article is about "Greeks", not "Notable Greek ethnics". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The abstract concept of Greeks is visualised for the reader by creating this gallery through a consensus-based process. The images in the gallery are chosen by editors through discussion as to the merits of each historical personality. These historical personalities are chosen as historical representatives of the concept of Greeks through history. Obviously I realise that you are not a fan of the concept of the gallery or the process through which a gallery is constructed. But as is true for many decisions here, this is a consensus-driven process. Consensus is currently in favour of displaying these galleries as evidenced by their presence in many articles about nations. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Dr.K.. Ultimately, my objections are merely my own objections. In this instance, it appears that the gallery had remained stable according to the consensus notables per the 2011 decision, therefore it bothers me less as it isn't disruptive. It's really become a pet peeve with me when users start coming through and making changes without consultation with other editors (particularly where it requires that other editors have to check that the notable/s in question actually are verified as acknowledged members of said ethnic group), or when time and energy is sapped on arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Iryna, cheers to you too. :) I fully agree with your comments. If we don't go by consensus and consultation when creating or modifying these galleries then these images become the arbitrary choice of individual editors. Same goes for their number. It cannot keep increasing, at least not without proper consultation and discussion. I think the present, consensus-based, limit of 25 is good enough. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If a gallery is deemed appropriate, my !vote would be to keep the existing consensus version. It covers a good range of representatives from the humanities and sciences, along with the Byzantine era, and later representatives of the arts, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree Iryna. I also think that preventing inflation of the number of images, as FPaS mentioned, is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would argue the exact same thing is displayed for my proposed collage. This collage jumps right from the ancient period (Hypatia) to the end of the medieval period (Constantine Palaiologos). Dr.K., you cited a 2011 discussion as the last time a consensus was reached, but if you look back you'll see that the current collage was not the one decided on. If we're going to go with the oldest than just put the five back. FPaS's chronology is very incomplete, the collage changed many more times than that, so digging backward won't have a definite answer. I had the idea to change my collage from 6x5 to 5x6 and I think you'll agree this came out good and it takes as much space as 25.
This perfectly groups five periods: Antiquity/Busts, Ancient, Christianization/Byzantine/Frescoes, Renaissance-Enlightenment/Independence/Paintings, and Modern/Photographs. In addition it also provides an athlete, businessman, religious leader, national poet, national patron saint, etc. more variety. If you want to show the evolution of Greeks in a summarized manner, this is perfect. Most collages have 30, and for a group as old as Greeks this should be no exception. --Steverci (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
... And we are arguing that the previous consensus selection drawing a line under 25 representatives serves well as is. This isn't a question of whether you can fit more people into what you perceive to be the same 'physical' space. The consensus selection from 2011 is quite satisfactory. You can also add my opposition to the use of a collages due to the fact that a collage will create problems as needing to take up a defined physical space inappropriate for various devices used to access Wikipedia. I've had years of experience in designing web sites. Using absolute widths and heights is deleterious for the purpose of accessibility nowadays. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And there you go again, declaring your own opinions to be consensus, like on the Romanians article how you keep saying putting back the collage would start an edit war even though IPs and users routinely try to put it up. Of course their opinions don't matter, only Iryna's does. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states in the header it's not a vote or an agreement of the people involved. By the way, this was the consensus of the 2011 discussion, if you bothered to read it. The current version is from a random day that FPAS dug up. But it doesn't really matter because as the guidelines also state, consensus is constantly changing. Thus by kicking a four year old dead horse you have been going against the fundamentals of Wikipedia's consensus guidelines all along. The discussion should be how best to improve the template. I've made my case for how my version is the most beneficial, your only argument for the current collage is that it's the last consensus which isn't even true. My 40 image one was:
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.
So please understand that unless we all come to an agreement, the 40 image one will be put back. Afterall, this is the same logic you've used to undo the Romanian collage over two dozen times. I recognized the collage could do with shortening and feel it has been improved, perhaps you should be more open-minded as well. --Steverci (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
(outdent)

Steve, please stop it. I have agreed with the views of Iryna and FPaS that the current collage is acceptable. You have no consensus to change it (3-1 against). Also please stop personal comments about Iryna or anyone else. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I'll overlook the WP:PERSONAL tirade directed at me and cut to the chase: how on earth have you come to the conclusion that putting back your "40 image" collage has met with any form of consensus? Your behaviour is pure WP:POINTy, WP:BATTLE, as well as obviously gaming the system. Your final paragraph describes this form of gaming in an exemplary manner. You're not WP:HERE: your only objective is to WP:WIN. Holding Wikipedia consensus to ransom and trying to pin the problem on me is offensive and ridiculous. These are 'per article' decisions, and I've readily acquiesced to retaining a gallery, so don't try to tell me that I'm the one with the problem behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My name isn't Steve. Let me cite Wikipedia:Consensus for a second time:
Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Steverci (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I like your idea to make a collage representing to evolution of Greeks and trim it at the same time, and created a collage to fit that. And according to Wikipedia's guidelines this collage FPaS put up is not last consensus, which is the main argument given for it. --Steverci (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"You're not WP:HERE: your only objective is to WP:WIN. Holding Wikipedia consensus to ransom". Rather hypocritical, this is exactly what you've been doing on the Romanians article for over a year. --Steverci (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Since everyone is in agreement for trimming, I took care of it and kept the collage in cronological order (which FPAS didn't bother to do). Settle for 30? Most collages have this many. You should still be able to move past the collage in one screenful, and I feel this version is still faithful to representing the evolution of Greeks from classical to modern times that Dr.K discussed. --Steverci (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steverci: Please stop making executive decisions as to the gallery. If a gallery is the consensus decision for "image", it needs to be a genuinely WP:CON decision as to who is to be depicted. In the meantime, you're tinkering and disrupting any discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K, please see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. My 40 image version was the last consensus version, so please undo your revert. Since there's a clear desire for less images, I propose the 30 image collage I just put up. Unless anyone has specific objections to the people depicted, lets just stick with it. --Steverci (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Silence and consensus is not applicable here because four editors have raised objections regarding your additions. So the last consensus version restored by FPaS is the one which will remain until such time as new consensus emerges. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Not quite I'm afraid: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. No one contested my version for over half a year. FPsA proposed a 25 image one and found dispute. I created an ideal 30 image one above, check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steverci (talk • contribs)
Even if we assume you had consensus through silence for half a year. per WP:CCC that six-month consensus is over and replaced by another. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, there has been no consensus since. Consensus isn't a vote. --Steverci (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither is edit-warring. One of the things I am trying to do here is to at least attempt to advise you not to start any edit-war to impose your preferred version in the absence of any other editors agreeing with you. If you don't heed my advice I can only see problems in the future. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In terms of guidelines, the current version follows none of them. This isn't the collage agreed on in the 2011 discussion, nor is there a consensus in the 2015 discussion. What ground does it have? I've explained why my collage is the best choice per desires of the discussion. There was demand to shorten it, and I did so. There was demand for it to represent evolution of Greeks, and I did so. This current version isn't even in chronological order! Hiding behind a false consensus is not representing all user's legitimate concerns nor following guidelines and policies.
I won't get into an edit war, even though it's a violation of guidelines that the 40 image collage wasn't left up in the meantime. --Steverci (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Violation of guidelines? Where? Try reading the BRD process again carefully. No one else agrees with the tinkering that had taken place by you in March: these are the kind of WP:NINJA changes to content (as noted by Alexikoua) that can get through unnoticed because regular editors are involved in multiple articles. Since you drew attention to your changes again only a few days ago, neither what you'd done, nor the couple of variants on shorter and longer collages have been considered acceptable. If the version that stands currently is not the same as the 2011 consensus version, but other editors are satisfied with it, it becomes the potential August 2015 consensus gallery. There is no guarantee that any of your particular preferences or renditions are going to end up being the new consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please correct the 10,141,350 (2011 census) figure in some way. The 2011 census reaults do not have the figure, please check the results.[14] Articles must not contain original research, especially articles that must satisfy the Good article criteria. The only figures the 2011 census results provide are 9,903,268 citizens of Greece and a total population of 10,815,197. The results do not provide figures about ethnic groups as the Greek government does not collect information about ethnic self-determination at the national censuses. see CIA#People and Society#Ethnic Groups.[15] There are Greek citizens who are not ethnically Greek and foreign citizens who are Greek, so an estimate other than the census is necessary, at least as an addition. For example Romani people in Greece are 300,000- 350,000, Aromanians: 200,000; Arvanites: 200,000, Turks: 90,000[16], Slavic Macedonians: 100,000-200,000[17] and all these are citizens of Greece. In Greece there are also ethnic Greeks, citizens of Albania, the Balkan countries and the former USSR. Somebody try to provide an estimate for Greece, if you don't find I propose Joshua project to be used as such.[18]45.33.138.203 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Corrected number to 10,816,286 per http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A1602/PressReleases/A1602_SAM01_DT_DC_00_2011_03_F_EN.pdf the most recent census figures I can find off of http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE Cannolis (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  Wrong archives fixed x 2; remaining archives correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since this RfC has been closed with a clear "consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups" [19], I'm going to make a start here and remove the gallery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Noticed 2 major issues that could potentially jeopardize this entry's GA status.

  1. "Names" section needs trimming or at least have some of its content transferred to the main entry (Names of the Greeks).
  2. "Origins" section is a sloppy amalgam of archaic factoids, speculation and unproven hypotheses (Proto-Ionians?); best solution: replace everything with Dbachmann's recent (and scholarly) edits on the Proto-Greek language entry.

Thoughts? Theban Halberd (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the "Names" section can and should be trimmed, starting with anything unsourced. Regarding the Origins section, the middle paragraph on "proto-Ionian" is entirely unsourced and can be removed. The rest is sourced though, and I see no reason for removing. Athenean (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Trimming shouldn't be limited to unsourced paragraphs since some statements in both sections are incorrect (or at least archaic) despite being sourced (in "Origins", Bryce is concentrated on the Trojans, Drews's theory was rejected a long time ago, and Cadogan et. al. was incorrect even for its own time; "coming of the Greeks" probably happened sometime during the Copper Age as already mentioned in the Proto-Greek language entry). Theban Halberd (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to see at least one more source that Drews' theory is rejected. One source shows controversy but is not enough to show that Drews theory has been rejected. Also, do you have an academic source that shows Cadogan is incorrect, and why did you remove Hamp? Because these are academic sources and cannot be dismissed that easily. Btw, please don't mark edits such as this [20] "minor". Athenean (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Source from Dickinson, one of the preeminent scholarly professionals on Mycenaean Greece, finds Drews's theory and others similar to it completely unsupported by the archaeological record; Cadogan et. al. was falsified years before and years after its publication (i.e. D.M. French in the 1970s and J. Forsén in the 1990s); Hamp was removed due to legitimate issues raised by a respectable user named Giorgos Tzimas. Theban Halberd (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Native to...?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Greeks are not "native to" anyplace except Greece (if we want to be specific, to the more southernly portion of the peninsula of the modern Greek nation-state). To say that the Greeks are native to Albania or to Egypt is rather absurd. There were certainly Greek settlements / colonies in those places, but, for that matter, the Greeks are native to the Ukraine and to the south of France. Obviously, those would not be accurate statements. 98.7.54.77 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you check the inline for Turkey? The second reference states 300,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxampi (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pontic Greek-speaking Muslims in Turkey are considered (and self-identify as) Turks, not Greeks, with very few noted exceptions.GroGaBa (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of Greeks

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the population table the Antiochean Greeks are not included. 2A02:587:3A03:1000:BC24:325C:EC90:B4AC (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the box at the top, why is United Kingdom put above Germany and Australia, as they both have larger numbers?2001:8003:4044:6100:A8B6:D0DD:62F8:D527 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

It seems that other ethnic group articles have them? Should we add it here?2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:EC33:2206:9122:5F7B (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no example of a closely related ethnic group to Greek People. The closest that comes in mind is Armenian and possibly Italian. Thank you. 79.107.163.127 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to include such a field. See Talk:Greeks/Archive 7#"Related" groups, for the n-th time. This has been tried and discussed ad nauseam before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Well this is very curious. I agree that since the ancient Hellenic forces reunited to form the homogeneous GREEK nation, only Greeks are Hellenic. I agree that the section need not be included. However, see Italians history. One editor is constantly trying to claim that Greeks are related to Romance Italians, all based on the very murky DNA/ethnogenesis argument (which would make Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians/Slavs and Turks as well as Balkan Gypsies all related). --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Gypsies are from South Asia and the related ethnic group section should tie in with DNA.76.187.211.251 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No this is what "related ethnic group" SHOULD NOT tie in with. Otherwise one batch of Bulgarians in one zone is unrelated to another batch of Bulgarians in a separate geographical zone. Needless to say what ethnogenesis discovers for the nations across the rest of the world. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
176.165.177.37 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC) the helens were called arvanitas or epiros in the tribe of Emperium of Ilyria

  Not done --Michail (blah) 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of table, based on a study by Hellenthal et al. published in Science (2014).

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Genetic atlas of human admixture history seeks to understand details from the admixtures, i.e. the result of previously distant populations meetings and breedings. Science Magazine is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one of the world's top academic journals. Garrett Hellenthal is a statistical geneticist and current research fellow at University College London. Garrett received his PhD in Statistics at the University of Washington, after which he did post-doctoral work at the University of Oxford. The rest of his team is also from experts of this issue. Do not delete a table based on the study. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Greeks are native to Egypt?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone explain the claim that Greeks are native to Egypt? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, they have been there at least for some 2600 years, see Greeks in Egypt. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I see! I did not know this. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Greeks in syria are not the same thing as Greek-Orthodox Christians in Syria.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently the list with populations of ethnic Greeks includes Syria with 512,000 Greeks, this however is highly inaccurate and the cited source refers to the religious group of Greek Orthodox people in Syria, Greek in this case refers to a specific branch of Christianity of which in Syria the far majority are ethnic Arabs, it doesn't actually refer to Greek peoples.

I propose that Syria is either completely removed from the list due to barely having a notable Greek minority left in the first place and having no accurate numbers or stating the pre-war number of ~8,000. Because the only reputable source I can find on the pre-war population says there were 8,000 muslim Greeks living in Syria in 2008[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.21.248.152 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greek population 20-22Million

Greeks 20-22Million Spartacus99999 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The chapter addresses at lengths conections towards everywhere which is commonsense and no wonder in thousands of years of human settlement. The only and not addressed question is WHEN new genes arrived, in particular of steppe ancestry. So what??2A02:8108:9640:AC3:9C54:CC5D:7AEF:ACF7 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay topic is this [21], basically whether to include the bolded part in: The history of the Greek people is closely associated with the history of Greece, Cyprus, Constantinople, the rest of the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Black Sea..

I think it should be included, because dear "I am so not Greek" Apples&Manzanas, in case you forgot, A Serbian and 2 Bulgarian Empires existed that penetrated deep into the modern territory of Greece. Slavic and Albanian cultures have also been historically present in Greece to a significant degree. I don't know, but to me it sounds like Greece is also entangled in Balkan history whether you like it or not. Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

  • Yet another personal attack, a pity, and something which doesn't belong on this talk page. I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but I edit Wikipedia pages for a wide range of countries. Unfortunately, you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with Greece. And whenever I disagree with you, your go-to insult is to accuse me of being Greek. This is extremely bigoted and you need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a Greek. Stop blaming all your problems on Greece/Greeks, if you think that's the only reason I'd ever disagree with you.
  • As to the matter at hand, your comment is largely vague and it's hard to know what you're referring to. "Albanian cultures have also been historically present in Greece to a significant degree." I'm not sure what this means? Are you talking about the conspiracy theory that Greeks descend from Albanians, because that has been thoroughly debunked and is only believed by a handful of extremists in North Macedonia and Albania. "A Serbian and 2 Bulgarian Empires existed that penetrated deep into the modern territory of Greece." Okay? I don't think that means that the history of "Greek people" is "closely associated with...the rest of the Balkans".
  • Remember this edit also needs to be in context, in that it's talking about the timeline of Greek people below. On that timeline I see no evidence that the history of Greek people is closely associated with the rest of the Balkans. As I said in my edit summary, Greek people have a different history to Albanians, Bulgarians, Croatians, etc. I don't think any Serb would consider themselves to be part of a Greek history, as a Greek would not consider themselves to be part of a Serbian history.
  • In any case, this is all irrelevant anyway, because here's the most important thing: and the thing you clearly missed when reading the text. The text as it is currently written: "The history of the Greek people is closely associated with the history of Greece, Cyprus, Constantinople, Asia Minor and the Black Sea. During the Ottoman rule of Greece, a number of Greek enclaves around the Mediterranean were cut off from the core, notably in Southern Italy, the Caucasus, Syria and Egypt. By the early 20th century, over half of the overall Greek-speaking population was settled in Asia Minor (now Turkey), while later that century a huge wave of migration to the United States, Australia, Canada and elsewhere created the modern Greek diaspora." What that text is talking about are the lands with which Greek people have been historically related with. Your edits and insults are entirely therefore irrelevant. The text is not discussing whether there was Slavic influence in Greece or whether there are Albanians in Greece at all. The text is discussing the lands on which Greek people have been historically associated with. The question is not whether there were once Serbs in Greece, the question is whether there were once Greeks widespread in the lands of modern-day Serbia. Please note this important difference. If you do not believe that Greeks were widespread in Serbia, then you should actually be supporting my edit. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ΔΙΟΡΘΩΣΗ "The Greeks or Hellenes (/ˈhɛliːnz/; Greek: Έλληνες, Éllines [ˈelines]) are an ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Italy, Turkey, Egypt "

Wrong report. The Greeks are not a group that has come from Cyprus, Albania, Italy, Turkey, Egypt. It must be corrected and writen correctly. Because the Greek tribes existed throughout the Mediterranean and ancient Ionia before Christ, even before the mentioned countries existed. Albania, Egypt, New Turkey are different races. It is important that this will be underlined.

Λαθος διατύπωση οι Ελληνες δεν είναι μια εθνική ομάδα που έχει προέλθει απο την Κύπρο, Αλβανια, Ιταλία, Τουρκία, Αίγυπτο. Πρεπει να διορθωθεί και να διατυπωθεί σωστά. Διότι τα ελληνικά φύλα υπήρχαν σε όλη την μεσόγειο και αρχαία Ιωνία προ Χριστού, πρίν ακόμη υπάρξουν οι αναφερθείσες χώρες. H αλβανία, η αιγυπτος, η τουρκία, καθως και η κεντρική και άνω ιταλία είναι διαφορετικές φυλές. ειναι σημαντικό αυτό να υπογραμμιστεί. Σοφιαεξαρχεια (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Greek Etymology

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Khirurg:, can you explain why you reverted the Greek etymology edits? Why is it "just weird"? Dyḗwsuh₃nus (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That particular link was an "easter-egg link", i.e. one where the reader has on way of guessing what it will lead to. It also had very little relevance to that particular passage (a sentence about where Greek people lived during historic times, when the link went to something about the hypothetical pre-historic etymon of one of their ethnic names.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture of yellow flag with Double-headed eagle on article

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The article states: "Another highly recognizable and popular Greek symbol is the double-headed eagle, the imperial emblem of the last dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire and a common symbol in Asia Minor and, later, Eastern Europe.[224] It is not part of the modern Greek flag or coat-of-arms, although it is officially the insignia of the Greek Army and the flag of the Church of Greece. It had been incorporated in the Greek coat of arms between 1925 and 1926". and has a picture of that flag to the left side. However the article's topic isn't about popular/non popular symbols or insignias in Army and Church, but about the people. And that flag isn't verified by the sources as being the people's flag. The sources do not confirm that this is a symbol representing the Greek people as whole.

I recommend the removal of just the flag's picture from the present article, and keep it tidy by showing only the Greek flag instead. After all, this article isn't about symbols but about the people themselves and if a flag has to be displayed, that's the Greek one. If the readers would like to see how the Double-headed eagle flag looks like, sure, we have already a wikilink, which is directing the readers to the relevant article: Flags of Greece: Double-headed eagle. How is that? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The double-headed eagle has been used by Greeks for a very long time, is closely associated with the Greek people, and a picture is due. There is a ton of sources that the double headed eagle is widely used by Greeks [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. This is especially true of Anatolian, Constantinopolitan, and Pontian Greeks (for example, the sports clubs AEK, PAOK, and others, proudly use it). It is particularly insulting to them to state that that "it is not a symbol of all Greeks", as if they are "lesser" Greeks. By this argument, nothing is a "symbol of all Greeks" (one could even say the same thing about the Greek flag). It also doesn't make sense to keep the text, but remove the picture. If the text is kept, a picture is WP:DUE. I also find the timing of this edit (May 29) extremely insensitive and ill-advised. Please reconsider. Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh my sincerest apologies, I didn't realize it was 29 May when I made the post. This is embarassing. I felt it was still 28 May when I made the post. Its surprising how time flies fast and it is next day already before you realize it. I'm very sorry if this looked as if it had any political connotations (i.e. Fall of Constantinople). Considering the sources and the embarrassing timing of the edit coinciding with it, I will self-revert. I can't believe this actually happened to me. Edit: self reverted. And by the way, I have completely forgot it is the date of the Fall. Again sorry. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. No worries, we all make mistakes (I have made so many myself!). Thanks again. Khirurg (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethnographic Map

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion
 

I have changed the ethnographic map in the article because it erroneously depicts non-Greek-inhabited regions as ethnically Greek. The map I placed, although not being the best ethnographic map, has a better understanding of the situation. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: in WP:BRD there is the D, which you didn't follow. I'm not sure why you just blindly reverted. By the way, I don't think the GA status is still valid considering it was appointed in 2009 and that since then many POV-edits were made to the article. Ahmet Q. (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't work like that. That map is sourced to National Geographic, there's nothing "controversial" about it. Who says it's "controversial"? Do you have a source? No. So you can't just label any maps you don't like as "controversial" and your maps as "more accurate", just like that. Plus, it has been in the article for ages, so it can't be removed without consensus. And your map doesn't even have an author (it says "unknown author"). Lastly, this is a high visibility article and a WP:GA. Nothing happens without consensus. I advise against edit-warring tactics in the strongest possible terms. Khirurg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, you don't get to decide whether "the GA status is still valid". Also doesn't work that way. Khirurg (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well the map can't stay because of what I wrote above. It is misleading to the readers to depict ares which have historically been non-Greek as Greek.Ahmet Q. (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say that I decide whatever the GA is still valid, that is done through the reassessment process. I said that I think it isn't valid anymore. Ahmet Q. (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The map is sourced to a reliable source, Ahmet, it doesn't matter whether you think it is misleading. We go by what reliable sources say. Khirurg (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the source qualifies as a reliable source anymore considering it was made more than 100 years ago (WP:AGEMATTERS), plus the quality is really low. Obviously no ethnographic map is perfect, except that this one is in clear contradiction with modern bibliography. There are multiple other 19-20th century maps that are closer to what modern sources say that could be used instead . Ahmet Q. (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like to have the input of @Dr.K.: as well to achieve consensus considering they reverted me. Ahmet Q. (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
National Geographic definitely qualifies as a reliable source, whether then or now. I don't see any "contradictions with modern bibliography". I'd say it reflects the situation in 1918 pretty accurately. Your map on the other hand, doesn't even have an author. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I ever come across someone calling National Geographic unreliable. Oh well, there's always a first time I guess. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
By the way, did you look at the Kosovo area in your map? I've mentioned it before, but you never responded. Thought you should know. Khirurg (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not some undiscovered tribes in the Amazon rainforest. This is Europe. I'm sure Nat Geo transcribed these populations correctly even in the 1900s. Btw, don't ping me, unless you want to annoy me. Dr. K.
Well Khirugh I obviously didn't say that modern publications of the magazine are not reliable. But 100 year old maps of a magazine should not be considered equally reliable as modern publications. Wouldn't you agree with this? Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Euh...excuse me Dr.K? Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you need a translation of what I wrote? Try Google. Dr. K. 04:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
National Geographic has always been a prestigious publication, even more so in the past. Perhaps the most prestigious publication of its day, even. There are no "modern" maps of 100 years ago, so it's probably our best bet. But I note your map is not a "modern" publication either, so it's kind of a weird argument for you to make. Btw, did you see the area around Kosovo in your map? What do you make of that? Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well I have to disagree and mention WP:AGEMATTERS again. Since we clearly disagree on the maps, maybe we can chose another one or open a RfC. What do you suggest? Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Dr.K. I'm not sure to understand, please explain yourself. Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have already responded. If you don't understand what I wrote, it is your problem, not mine. Dr. K. 04:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well your comment sounds kinda like a threat so I think you owe me some kind of explanation? Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Which part did you take as a threat? Dr. K. 04:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This comment [27]. Ahmet Q. (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think my comment contains a threat, use Google translate and explain to me which sentence is threatening. Dr. K. 05:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if you can't see yourself how your comments are inappropriate you will have to re-evaluate your way you speak to fellow users. Also, why should I use Google translate? Ahmet Q. (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If you think my perfectly appropriate comments are offensive, you don't understand English. Ergo, you need Google to translate my comments to you. I don't give English tutorials. Sorry. Dr. K. 05:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The two maps are one worse than the other. Either have a proper map or not at all. The map I removed not only shows half of southern Albania as Greek majority - including Konispol, Lukova, Borsh, large parts of Kurvelesh, Vranisht, Delvina, Albanian-populated parts of Chameria etc- but also in other places such as western Macedonia it shows as Slavic Albanian settlements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
What about Aleppo and all of northern Syria? Why is it depicted as only a mixture of Turks and Armenians? Did not it have a single place with Arab population? Southern and eastern Turkey are shown as not having a single place with Kurds. This map is worse than I previously thought. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The map is approximate, like all maps. No map is perfect. It doesn't show "half of southern Albania as Greek majority", only a tiny part. The villages you mention are not significant, this is just nitpicking. It's been there for ages, and it's useful to our readers, so you can't just remove it by edit-warring. Khirurg (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
They are entire areas, not just "villages" that "are not significant". It does not matter if it has been there "for ages", if it is highly incorrect. And the incorrect parts are not only in southern Albania, but also in western Macedonia, Turkey, Syria and maybe other parts too. An approximiate map does not have any reason why to show X-populated areas as populated by Y group. A POV tag should probably be added to the section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If a map which showed all of Epirus Albanian was used at Albanians, it would be removed. A map which erases all Albanian communities in Greek Epirus is used in this case. There are hundreds of other maps which can be used instead of this one.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Northern Syria is shown as being Turkish and Armenian without a single Arab and Kurdish part. According to the map, Kurds in eastern and southern Turkey do not exist. Northern Syria. eastern and southern Turkey, Kurvelesh, Konispol, Delvina etc are not just unimportant villages. It is unbelievable that we even need to have this discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The map is about Greeks, it doesn't have to depict 100% correctly regions which don't concern the presence of Greeks and other communities. But it shouldn't be a maximalist map which erases other communities. Side comment: Don't ping me for later replies in this discussion, I don't have time. I just wanted to highlight how this issue can be diffused quickly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Greek-Speaking Enclaves of Lebanon and Syria by Roula Tsokalidou. Proceedings II Simposio Internacional Bilingüismo. Retrieved 18-12-08
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks/Archive_8&oldid=1136776891"