Talk:Greeks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

Bold text==The 3RR does not apply to reverting abusive 87.202... edits== Please leave this note at the top of the page. The user operating IPs in the 87.202.xx range has been warned about edit warring, disruption, and insulting edit summaries on User talk:87.202.25.88. As for 3RR violations, I didn't even bother, as 87.202.25.88 was already blocked for that. The user has continued the destructive editing, and I would like to block him/her. Unfortunately I didn't know just how dynamic these IPs are when I placed the warning; a block would be quite likely to hit innocent and virtuous users. I'll see what technical marvels I can perform later, but meanwhile, please note this: any collaborative editor on this page should feel free to revert abusive and/or reverting edits from the 87.202.xx range even if it means reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please mention this note in your edit summary if you do that, and refer any admin who wishes to discuss the matter to me. Bishonen | talk 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Heavy handed-bish. RAWR! Bishzilla taking on the world! Next: World Tour! Project2501a 10:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And tell 'em I'll see 'em in Tokyo. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

What happened to all the Greeks of Byzantine?

I think this should be touched upon here, since I'm even curious. Antidote 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Greek muslims

Are Greek Muslims simply considered Turkified Greeks or even Turkish ? Do they even consider themselves Greeks and are they fully descended from indigenous Greeks ? Epf 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mixed bag, dude. After 600 years since the begining of the Ottoman Occupation, these people are no more "indigenous" to Greece than a Christian-Orthodox Greek. So, it call comes down to attitude and ideology: Some are seperationists, some are Turkified Greeks (read: pre 1830 A.d.), some consider themselves Greek, some are agnostic/atheists and some convert over to Christianity. Take your pick. But there's definately an Islamic Greek minority and I'd say that most of them consider themselves Greek citizens, contrary to what some Greek nationalists might say.

Nationalism is on the rise in Greece, somewhat of a popular pass-time. Since we (Greeks) don't want to blame ourselves for our Zamanfu-ism, we blame anybody that's not "Greek", convinently forgetting of our own Greek heritage and intermixture. Project2501a 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hellenic Census

Someone keeps changing the 2001 Census for Greece on the Greeks page. The 2001 Census recorded 10.964.020 Greeks[see Demographics of Greece] Just to remind everyone the Census is held every 10 years in Greece. The 2003 figure of 11.000 883 is not a Census figure because there was no 2003 Census in Greece. Thank you [GS Australia]

It is an estimation,not a census.the word 'census' has been removed.--Hectorian 02:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

The following was posted at User talk:Jkelly. I am copying it here so that regular editors of this article can discuss the issue. Jkelly 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly; I wanted to request the removing of the image of Alexander the Great on the Greek people article. As you probably know, whether the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe or an independent group is very controversial among Greeks and Macedonians, and it is still disputed by international historians. Wikipedia itself has noted in many articles the banning or the warning of discussing the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, like in the Alexander the great article and the articles in the Wikipedia History website dedicated to Alexander the Great. Thus, Wikipedia knows it cannot choose Alexander's ethnicity, I don't see how Greeks on Wikipedia can. As you can see, there isn't a picture of Alexander the Great on the Macedonians (ethnic group) article for the same reason. There are many famous Greeks in the world, from ancient philosiphers to modern day businessmen, so it will be very easy to replace Alexander the great in the Greek people article. Sincerely, Macedonia

To the previous guy...You are so pathetic! Astavrou 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Alexander's opinion count? Do Herodotus and other contemporary historians who gave details on the Argeads count? And finally what about the fact that Alexander's reign is the begining of the Hellenistic civilization? talk to MATIA 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shold we re-add his picture then? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 10:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Alexander definitely belongs on the page. I don't think there is that much question as to his ethno-linguistic background and he identified himself as a Greek anyway. I'm not entirely sure how much of a question it is that he was Greek so much as what relationship various peoples in the general area have to the ancient Macedonians. I'm of the opinion that some of their ancestry has probably permeated into a lot of the local peoples' lineages, but this shouldn't change that he was a Greek himself. Also, genetic testing is increasingly showing that many people who live in one place tend to be descended, at least in part if not mostly, from the various ancient populations who settled in various parts of the world thousands of years ago. The Greeks, although mixed with invaders to some extent, may not be as different from the ancients as has been lately been put forth. Also, they no doubt have relationships with a lot of their neighbors as well so I think there is room for nuance. Tombseye 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also at least one Greek woman would be nice to represent the other half. Tombseye 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye. Alexander should be present as a major Greek personality, if for no good reason, because he recognised himself as such. Miskin 14:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is Greek, for the very good reason that he said so to the whole wide world and he spread his Hellenic culture and his Greek language wherever he laied his helmet. Greeks in those days were always putting down eachother, either for being a Spartan, or a Macedonian, or a Melian or for coming from the wrong side of the island. Greeks have been a little too adept at betraying eachother, but cannot do without eachother. Today, don't say you are an Athenian if you are in Thessaloniki, or that you are from Larisa if you are in Volos. Corfiots think Peloponesians are barbarians and the people of Chios cannot stand Mytilene or Samos. Welcome to the Hellenic world. Politis 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nationalism, supported by the ill-fated policies of a generation ago in Greece. Alexander would not have protested his Greekness so much had it not been open to serious doubts; no Corcyran did. He was doubtless called, like his father and his countrymen, barbaros ek Borborou. If Alexander I was a Greek, why was he called Philhellene, like Aemilius Paulus? What other Greek was?

For a middle view, see Peter Green: Alexander of Macedon. Septentrionalis 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually we were talking about Alexander III, the Great. Alexander I is a different person. Miskin 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Green is not a scholar who represents the majority. If we count how many scholars consider Macedon as Hellenic and how many they don't, be sure you'll lose. Similarly many ancient sources consider Macedonians to be Greeks. "Philhellene" was used in various occasions as a title for Greeks, if that's your only argument that you've got to de better than that. Miskin 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Septentrionalis, I think that speculative 'descriptors' such as, "Alexander would not have... had it not been", fall into the 'if-pigs-could-fly' school of history.

The point is that Greek society had moved on since the Peloponnesian Wars: Athenian prestige had suffered , Aristotle had graduated from Plato's academy, Greek colonies had expanded communicated a different sort of Greekness. The self-perception of the Greeks and their mission in the world was also shifting as was the language (do people in US, UK, France… describe each other in similar terms as 30 years ago?). Alexander was living with the evolution of around 1,000 years of Greek history behind him (today, English England has 800 years behind it). In that context, Alexander was a Greek who was envied by some southern Greeks, and he was a philhellene because he was spearheading that Greek drive to propagate his/their civilisation. Finally, if you have a contextualised definition of the term 'philhellene' at the time of Alexander, it may be interesting to share it. Thanks. P.s. The accumulated experiences of the Greeks and Greekness can be challenging to appreciate in the age of the nation-state. - User: Politis

---

To respond to Septentrionalis's question: "If Alexander I was a Greek, why was he called Philhellene, like Aemilius Paulus? What other Greek was?"

"Philhellen" (Φιλέλλην) in Anchient Greek means "Greek-Friend". Alexander I of Macedon was called Philhellen by the Thevan poet Pindaros. Others called "Philhellens" (by Isocrates)[1] were:

1. Jason of Pherae (Ιάσων των Φερών) [2] and
2. Evagoras of Cyprus (Ευαγόρας της Κύπρου)[3].

Therefore "Philhellen" in Anchient Greek (as in Modern) means "Philopatris" (Φιλόπατρις) or simply Patriot.

Plato also defines the word Philhellen as Patriot[4].

So does Xenophon[5].

Furthermore, please keep in mind that Thevans were against Macedonians and later on, along with the Spartans they were initially against the rest of the Greeks and their Achaean League, in Megas Alexandros's war versus the Persian Empire. Pindaros' house was the only one spared when Megas Alexandros conquered Theves, in recognition of his words for his grandfather.

Finally, there are dozens of Anchient Greek uses of the word Philhellen for Greeks[6].

Now, is there ANY MORE DOUBT that "Philhellen" means "Greek Patriot"? NikoSilver 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Pontic?

Why does the infobox include Pontic, isn't Pontic supposed to be a Greek dialect? I'm asking because if idioms like Pontic are to be included, then Tsakonian should be there as well. Pontic, Tsakonian, Cypriot, Cretan etc are usually viewed (by Greeks at least) as mere regional variations of Greek [7], so if specific dialects are to be mentioned, then shouldn't all of them be mentioned? Latinus 10:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Justinian I photo

Why is Justinian presented to be a greek along Plato and Pericles and even Heléna? What is the new historical evidence that suggests the Roman Emperor felt like greek or identified himself as greek? Did you read it anywhere? Donnerstag 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Justinian was a Byzantine Emperor actually. Put it more accuratelly Justinian was an Eastern Roman Emperor. Given the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire was based upon the foundations of Greco-Roman civilisation/culture and the Greek language was the de facto official one during the Justinian years the emperor was a part of the greater Greek dominated part of the world. In a broader view Justinian could be perceived as Greek in the same manner that Stalin is mostly perceived as Russian although he was Georgian (with Georgia being a part of a communist Russian empire) or Hitler is perceived as German although his origins were Austro-Jewish. Using nowadays political map though Justinian originated from the near the city of modern Scopje in the F.Y.R.O.M. but was he Serbian though? Just to help you Serbians aka Slavic people migrated at that region during his years, but he couldn't be Slav since he was an aristocrat while Slavs were barbarians at those years. On the other hand when it comes to me I have a bad habit of classifying all Byzantine historical characters as Greek since to my knowledge (...fan of this historical period myself) the Byzantine Empire was a pure Greek state just as like the HRE was Germanic or the Ottoman was Turkish. Actually Kemal Ataturk borned in Salonica, was he Greek?? Hopefully this answers your question. Astavrou 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that the very meaning of the various words Greek/Hellene/etc. varied over time, sometimes based on language, sometimes on politics, sometimes on religion, etc. Indeed, the 19th century romantic nationalist conception of the fusion of language, folklore, race, religion, and politics into a "nation" simply didn't exist in most of history for the Greeks or anyone else. This essentialist fallacy is at the root not only of sterile debates about whether Justinian was "Greek", but also much of the nonsense going on on the Macedonian/Greek pages. Unfortunately, it is apparently still being taught in schools in Greece, Macedonia (FYR), etc. --Macrakis 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of the Greeks

I think that the article about the Greeks is incomplete or inaccurate in some cases concerning the number of the Greeks.so,i have decided to start a topic here in order to improve it.

Before starting i would like to ask for the classification 'who is a Greek?',and i am proposing the following distinctions:

1.those who have greek national consciousness(but this is rather difficult to be sited,wheather someone has or not)

2.those who speak greek(but this way greek-speaking populations e.g. in italy and turkey should be included,and not-greek speaking populations in ukraine and russia should not)

3.those who are greek orthodox(but religion has long ago stopped been the major reason for ethnic identities)

4.those who have greek origins(hard to say this,which may also lead to racial and racist theories)

5.those who have greek citizenship(but a governmental paper can be an accurate reason for an ethnic identity)

I can site some sources concerning the greek population in various countries,but before editting them in the article,i think dialogue is needed. thanks.--Hectorian 09:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I actually put in some figures for the Greeks and did some work on the page on and off. One of the problems is that many Greeks outside of the immediate area of the Balkans have intermarried, such as in the US which has a large Greek population, while in other places it has assimilated partially. I had a tough time because some of the figures I put in were dubbed by one wikipedian as 'biased' towards Albanians which was not my intent. We can, at best, work with estimates I'd say. The Greek census and the US census, for example seem to work to some extent, but ultimately it's a tough call. I think the main criteria should be people who speak Greek outside of Greece and Cyprus and the figures inside Greece would depend upon other factors as there is a growing debate in the EU as to whether or not there should even be actual ethnic groups per se such as in France (the French people debate was something I also got into). I'd skip the Greek origins part since Greeks settled all over the Mediterranean and it's not feasible to count people who might be part Greek. Which sources did you have in mind? Ethnologue seems to count the number of Greek speakers at over 12,000,000.[8] Perhaps some of these figures could also be added.Tombseye 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources that i have in mind is this one [9],but i am not sure if it can be considered as accurate or not.Concerning the greek population in Egypt this page [10] is talking about 350000 greeks in egypt in 1989(and as much as i am aware-and for sure i am not wrong-there has not been an exodus of greeks from egypt during the past 2 decades.the same figure can be found in [11] and also this one [12].all these articles seem to be reproducting the same material,but they are not from greek websites.so,i do not thing that the figures were biased.also a rather neutral source [[13]]. about the number of the greeks living in the united states,there are the same difficulties as for all the other ethnic groups that constitute the usa population.in this page from hungary [[14]] is sited that there are 5 million greeks in usa.obviously it is an estimation concerning people who are even partly of greek origins.maybe this numbers seems an overestimation,but it could be concidered an actual number if someone takes into account the fact that almost the 20% or greeks migratted in usa in the early 1900s,and few of them came back.maybe it can ebe sited in the Greeks article under the notice 'partial ancestry'.--Hectorian 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting info. The Ethnologue estimate seems more likely to me, since as you say many Greeks have been leaving Egypt and since the figure is from 2004, I'd say it's more reliable that there are only 42,000 Greeks left there. The US estimate probably includes partial Greek ancestry and I'd use the official US census showing 1,150,000 or so people claiming to be of Greek ancestry in the US.[15] Overall, it might make sense to officially list the stats that can be verified and then in the article discuss other possible numbers and groups that might have been excluded due to problems in ascertaining exact figures. As I said below, the best barometer should be to determine Greek speakers in the eastern Mediterranean and then primary Greek ancestry overseas. Some mention of partial Greek ancestry wouldn't be out of line either. Tombseye 20:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the number 350000 about Egypt includes both ethnic greeks and greek orthodox.but as i have said in the beginning,it is hard to say who is greek according to the language,or to the religion only.perhaps the first number even include orthodox egyptians partially greek,or copts that have become orthodox...As for the usa number,it would be better,i think,to make the same with the german-americans: state how many reported german ancestry in the 2001 census,but also note how many had done this in the 1991,and how many are said to be according to other sources.cause,speaking about the german-americans,the difference is huge,and i really cannot explain why...And i guess that the same thing might be happenning for the rest ...-americans too--Hectorian 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Although most of figures seems close to reality and in general they don't follow a naive post 74 Greek habit of grossly inflating diaspora figures in order to increase political leverage in other countries, some figures seems way out of order: Number of Greeks in Egypt is for Greek Orthodox and not Greeks. Even the Greek ministry of foreign affairs which habitually inflate numbers gives 5,000. Same goes for Sweden. [16] --Marksg 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

== Number of Greeks worldwide== The Census is far more reliable and accurate than estimates.There is an Ancestry,Religion and language code on the Census. If you do not tick either one of these boxes then you are not Greek. For example the 2001 Hellenic Census showed 10.964.020 and of this 767.000 were foreigners.[see Migration Information source] click on to Greece and it breaks down the Census.The other fact is we have one of the lowest fertility rates worldwide currently 1.2 children per woman and nearly 20% of Greeks worldwide are over 60 years of Age. I urge everyone to start talking Census when quoting numbers this is why countries have them every 10 years. For example in Australia the 2001 Census showed 375.703 Greeks. The 1981 Australian Census showed 316.992 Greeks. Even today certain Greek community leaders in Australia for other reasons still talk of 600.000 to 700.000 Greeks without evidence.

The Council of Overseas Greeks [SAE] have previously relied on estimates and are now coming around to the Census figures. For example the long held belief by certain members of SAE that there were 3 million Greeks in America proved to be false as one can see in the 1990 and 2000 American Census. Also SAE for a long time was talking of seven million Greeks in the Diaspora based on their estimates without quoting relevant sources. If we use the Census that seven million figure is a lot lower. We need to be honest about our overseas numbers otherwise how can we deal with the issues faced by many overseas Greeks such as low fertility rates,assimilation and race mixing. These important issues which need to be addressed by the Greek Government.For example is it better to spend lots of money in keeping Hellenism alive in the Former Soviet Republics or is it better bring all of them back to Greece and Cyprus given the current economic instability in those countries? Thank you. [User GS] Australia 18/3/06.

Estimations and censa have each their own importance.just an example:german-americans in the last 2 censa (1990-2000):[17],[18] What do u say?was there any mass genocide or migration of german-americans and noone noticed?estimations can be accurate too,if they come from a reliable source.--Hectorian 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Censa and estimations...hmm, it seems that estimations tend to more than double the results of censa. Indeed, my calculations for the Greeks and GC in the UK indicate 80,000, which is less than half the estimations. My number is seen as realistic by an embassy educationalist. But I will not use this number because it will be dismissed as POV - no problemo. Our sources for UK Greeks need to be estimated through church attendance, Greek school numbers, place of birth entries and hit and miss Greek name count. Though this is the best method available to us, it contains intrinsic shortcomings - for instance, what about Greeks with non-Greek surnames? But even this method has not been attempted. A leaked Bank of Cyprus estimate aimed at directing the opening of new branches said, less than 90,000. But we cannot use 'leaked' numbers. The bank sticks to the 200,000 to 300,000 figure!

Of course, a census gives a snapshot of a particular moment in time. There is no 'Greek' box to tick. Only hospitals enter our religion (Greek Orthodox) in case of imminent death. In the UK, the census includes all present in the country, even tourists visiting relatives. It misses out permanent resident who are absent and most illegals. So the number challenge remains. Politis 11:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason to give wrong and misleading figures in this entry? In all Greek encyclopedias of the 20th century (Megali Elliniki Engiclopedia, Hlios, Pagosmia Geografia Dimitrakou etc and up to 74) you get consistent figures for Greeks abroad for example Greeks in USA 400,000 (1932), 700,000 (1955), 850,000 (1969). After 74 in an Orwellian fashion one reads in every Greek reference, figures ranging from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000! Same goes for other countries. Short of a unique and extremely high birth rate among Greeks abroad or a mass exodus from Greece around 74 this is obviously wrong. Getting to Egypt and the 42,000 Greeks in this country this would imply that Nasser policy of forcing out Alexandria's Greek community is a myth. Real figure is several hundreds (as mentioned to all Greek travelers by previous Patriarch of Alexandria) and an inflated but at least only by a factor of 3 to 5 figure is given by the Greek ministry of foreign affairs (5,000)--Marksg 07:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, perhaps cause in this case (Greeks in Egypt) the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives a number smaller than the one listed here, u accept that it is true. in the other cases that it gives higher estimations('bout other countries), u say it is false. it is obvious that u are trying to edit the lowest estimations every time... --Hectorian 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No source can be accepted without questioning it first: For example are we going to dismiss US census and give SAE estimation? Take it that we agree US census is rather more reliable. Ethnologue to start with, tries to estimate speakers of a language not ethnicity. Usually is rather unreliable. For example it gives 180,000 "Macedonian" speakers in Greece quoting 1986 census...as you may know census in Greece takes place at the first year of every decade hence this entry is erroneous. What I'm suggesting is to question various sources and choose per case the more reliable, no matter if increases or decreases the total number. If we cannot come to a consensus we can give two entries and let the reader choose for himself --Marksg 07:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of Greek Cypriots in UK

There was leaked information from the Bank of Cyprus in the late 1990s that the absolute maximum number of GC in the UK was well bellow 80,000. The survey was carried out to help them in their expansion program. The numbers were never published. If we take this figure into account, then the outer maximum of Greeks in the UK (including the 28,000 Greek students) is around 125,000. We should stop kidding ourselves, den kanoume paidia / we are not reproducing. The Greek Cypriots boost the numbers for 'lobbying' reasons. In the UK census, the GC line was that no GC or Greek should declare their ethnicity. Why? Because our overall UK numbers would indicate less than 60,000! If anyone has real or plausible statistics, lets have them. Politis 18:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If the number was never published,how do u know about it?and why u trust an unofficial number?U also have to consider the fact that the greek cypriot population is growing,not shrinking as the population of greece [[19]], [[20]] [[21]] About the number of greeks in the UK,the general secretary for greeks abroad(an office of the ministry of foreign affairs),i think is more accurate than the unpublished survey of a bank.[[22]](it is in greek).and here is a link from BBC which states that there are up to 180000 greeks in london alone [[23]].'den kanoume paidia',but here we are not talking about greece,but greeks abroad.low population growth is a phaenomenon of greece(due to specific reasons),not of the greeks as a people.--Hectorian 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The figure was leaked by an official of the bank at a conference on the ROC during a conversation, in the late 1990s. There is strictly no evidence backing the 200,000 figure. NO EVIDENCE. In the US, people were invited to declare their heritage, we know the numbers. In the UK the Greeks and GC were discouraged to do so and hardly any did. If YOU have reliable numbers, please lets have them. The SAE and ggae.gr have carried out NO RESEARCH of their own, they simply repeat the figure handed to them. The GC in the UK population is not increasing but steadily decreasing, through intermarriage, lack of interest, deaths and returns to Cyprus. The decrease if reflected in falling church attendances during our Pascha and other key festivals. It is reflected in the falling numbers of membership in associations. We boost our numbers because it makes us feel good, because some people receive money (polla lefta) from Athens and the local UK authorities dependent on 'numbers', and because we are tembelides to do anything about the decrease. If you are a disaprora expert, you know it. I am as unhappy as you about the truth. Alla etsi einai file mou. - Politis, 3 March 2006

U say that the 200,000 figure based in the Gen.sec.of greeks abroad and in the BBC does not consist an evidence...But u also have provided NO EVIDENCE for the opposite...u just say that a bank official barely said something in a conference...Come on!u do not give any evidence!As far as i know,the UK census is not an ethnic one but a racial one,see Demographics of England from the 2001 United Kingdom census.so,how the greeks or GC should be counted?if they were 'discouraged' as u said,we would have a minimum number.now,we have no number at all(they are included in the 'Whites').what does it mean?that there is no GC in the UK?I do not think that attendances at church during Parcha etc,is a reliable source,cause neither in greece the church attendances grow in numbers...but this does not mean that we have stopped been greeks.also,many greeks abroad have converted(through intermarriages mainly) to other christian doctrines(and religions) or are atheists.religion has stop been a strict ethnic characteristic.and since u mentioned the USA census,it would be interesting for u to see how many people declared their german-american heritage in 1991 and how many in 2001.the gap is rather large!i guess u will agree with me that censa are made for political purposes...Etsi den einai file mou?--Hectorian 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Between us we have established a clear fact: there exists no evidence in the UK regarding the number of Greeks and GC. Therefore, any number is based on speculation or self-interest. The only clear statistic we have access to is the 'place of birth' entry. In 1991, around 58,000 declared Cyprus as their birth place (I cannot find the appropriate source). Loipon, exoume kai leme: These consist of up to 30% Turkish Cypriots (more TC left the north due to the embargo and situation), up to 5% are various British (including Maronites, military, etc), which leaves us with up to 70? GC, or 46,000 GC. Even if this number, through birthrates, increased by 100%(!) (a gross exageration), we have 92,000. Substract from this number 10% for those who returned and passed away, and we are left with around 81,000. But perhaps up to one third marry out, they have no property in Cyprus and cut their links. This leaves us with between 60-75,000 Greek Cypriots. The immigration flow from Cyprus since 1991 has been near non-existant; in fact,the outflow has increased due to the economic boom in the south. Likewise, the Anglo-Greek shipping is discovering the benefits of moving to Piraeus.

As for the census. There is a White (other) option. All info, greatfully received. Auta gia twra. Politis 11:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And again: all u are saying is based on your own assumptions...u make up yourself the percentange or turkish cypriots,maronites,cyprus born british.also,u make up yourself the birthrates and the deathrates and the intermarriages,plus those u have no property in cyprus!the 1991 number about 58,000 cyprus born people,is indeed a number,but such numbers have nothing to do with ethnicity(if my parents were in alaska when i was born,i would not be an alaskan!!!).all that i said(and provided links for that) is estimations about the greek population in the UK.u have provided nothing but speculations...Kai den mporw na katalavw gia pio logo prospatheis na meiwseis tin elliniki parousia sti bretania...--Hectorian 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I am trying to meiwsw is our omfaloskopia. Yes, I know that I am speculating, but at least I am speculating along reasonable lines, not picking a number. We need to be acutely aware of our real numbers; it is all an extension of the basic philosophical principle of 'know thyself' that one of our cleverer ancestors tought us - before he was made to drink a little hemloc by some less clever ancestors. These two words were also inscribed in Delphi, on the oracle-shrine; in other words, it is good to hear some 'artzi bourtzi kai loulas', but it is also good to know who - or in this case, how many we are in the UK. Politis 13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

in any case,these are the only estimations that we have and this is were we should stay and rely on.if u come over another more recent,more accurate,more reliable or more official estimation,i would be glad to know.but at the moment we are off topic.the number 200,000 is found in many sources(many of which are considered reliable).so,as long as no other source is cited,there is no reason for further discussion,in my opinion.--Hectorian 14:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Politis 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Counting Greeks (or hyphenated Greeks) in the UK/US/Australia/etc. is a difficult matter; counting Greek Cypriots is even harder. Consider various definitions:

1. Someone who was born in Greece/Cyprus or holds a Greek/Cypriot passport?
   • This is fairly easy to calculate: look at immigration figures and correct for emigration and death.
   • But it would be very restrictive.
2. Someone born in the UK with at least some percentage of ancestors born in Greece or with Greek passports?
   • If the percentage is 50% or less, then many people will have multiple heritages.
3. Someone who considers him or herself to have Greek heritage?
   • You actually have to ask. And of course many people have multiple heritages.
4. Someone who is actively involved in a Greek religious (Greek Orthodox) or political or cultural organization?
   • How do you count them? If you rely on the organizations, you will no doubt get inflated figures. On the other hand, most Greeks today do not go to church, etc.
5. Someone whose name looks Greek?
   • You can sample the phone book. But how about the many Harilaos Papadimitracopouloses who became Harry Pap?

That's why, if any figures are cited in the article, it is very important that the definition being used, the method of counting, and the source be clear. --Macrakis 16:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Come on. There are a thousand famous Greeks and you had to pick Constantine XI - the last Byzantine Emperor - who even expressed him-self as a non-Greek. Why not put Emperor Justinian or other more famous figures? --147.91.1.45 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantine XI (and all the Palaeologus family) did in fact express themselves both as "Greek" and as "Hellenes". It was Byzantine policy at the time to take pride on a Greek or Hellenic ethnicity over the Roman tradition. A key-figure of this movement was the neo-platonic philosopher Plethon. In politics, the 'Hellenic card' was played in order to gain sympathy from the Latins. It didn't work as the majority of the Greeks preferred to be under turkish rule rather than uniting the churches. This policy was continued by the Frech-educated Greek intellectuals of the 18th century, and eventually instigated the war of independence. Justinian on the other hand would take an insult on being called Greek. Miskin 14:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Greek regard themselves"

Macrakis please stop supporting such stubborn and unfair edits. I don't see why Greeks must get special treatment just because they happen to be one of the oldest surviving ethnic groups in Europe. Despite the general theories of your sources on "ethnicity", practically all sources specific to the history of Greeks or the Greek language, take for granted that they're writing on the continuity of the same people. There's no way I'm gonna let this POV pass ("regard themselves"), so refrain from making unsourced edits which suit your personal pseudo-liberal world. Miskin 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Greeks regard themselves" is inaccurate. During the war of independence, they were widely viewed as the inheritors of Ancient Greek history (I’m not sure about Byzantine) by the European powers as well as well as just be themselves. "Greeks regard themselves" implies that it is only a Greek claim and the rest of the world dismisses that claim as ludicrous. Is that the case? --Latinus 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't. This phrase degrades the 3000-year old Greek continuity. Such statements are not nationalistic nor extreme, they're just factual. Miskin 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, since I base myself on inumerable data and archival material regarding the Greek heritage, I feel I must back your stand. I am sure that if Macrakis is a serious person and is willing to read more source material (by and on the Greeks) and fewer theories on identity, he will also agree with you. Politis 16:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My fellow-editors, I would strongly recommend that you read the modern literature on nationalism and ethnicity, including Eric Hobsbawm, Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner, Fredrik Barth, Anthony D. Smith, Clifford Geertz, et al. Their analyses (with their differences) form the mainstream modern scholarly view of nationalism, not my "personal pseudo-liberal world".

As for the exceptionalist view that Greek nationalism is somehow unique, it simply doesn't hold up. The Greek case is discussed in many of these general works, but also in work specific to Greece, including for example Peter Bien's article (which I added to the references), Thanos Veremis, Loring Danforth, Georges Prevelakis.... Have you read any of these authors? It is certainly true that many European philhellenes in 1821 saw the modern Greeks as inheritors of Ancient Greece -- in fact, some scholars have argued that it was precisely this western romantic view that created Greek nationalism.

There are certaintly continuities, but there are also enormous changes over time, and periodic redefinitions or revivals in the meaning of Greekness at various periods (for example Plethon, Korais), many of them directly contradictory. It is indisputable that Modern Greeks consider themselves to be inheritors of the ancient tradition, as a social fact. Saying that they are the inheritors sweeps under the rug an enormously more complicated and ambiguous picture. --Macrakis 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and after all, for centuries, most Greek-speakers had regarded themselves as the inheritors of Rome; on the time-scale we are considering, Greek Revivalism was a new movement. Septentrionalis 18:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to use this enormous info-box, the whole paragraph should go lower in the article anyway. Septentrionalis 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Macrakis for your input, you have obviously thought about it. But you are not an expert in that particular field. A Greek opened a Greek and Latin academy in the late 7th century in Canterbury. The first real ancient Greek revival occured in the 12th century. You are not aware of the continuous impact Greeks made on the perception of ancient Greece in the West from before the fall of Constantinople. Greeks were teaching in Italy, Germany, France, England, Scotland... They were courted for their knowledge (unless, of course, you think all the surviving documents, letters, books are fakes). The renaissance was, to a considerable extent, affected by the Greek teachers flooding into Italy. They were teaching the language, exegsis, the methodology of interpreting ancient texts. In England, in the 16thC. one Greek was apologising to the bishops for being descended from the ancients because they were telling him that Greek was the language of paganism, but, he added, 'we are christians now'. Later in the 17thC, a famous Greek doctor and political advisor was petitioning at the highest level in England for the liberation of Greece from the Turks. Another doctor was writing about his Greekness, Alexander, and acting as chemist to Charles II of England. There were many more like him. By the late 17 and early 18 centuries, two religious best sellers were by Greek in Europe. etc... etc... And I am just mentioning a (formerly) fringe country for Hellenic impact, England.

So please, we will revert to the previous entry. Your reading is very selective and you have mentioned no source documents. Judging from your keen interest and analytic mind, I feel that you will re-consider your interpretation if you read more source material. Politis 19:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what Theodore of Tarsus has to do the question at hand; and the collection of "source documents" includes exactly one Byzantine text. I don't find the existence of one 12-century Atticist persuasive on this either. Septentrionalis 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the contribution of Greek scholars to the Western understanding of ancient Greek literature. That is a different topic, though, from the question of national identity through time. You believe my reading is selective; but I have cited very specific, modern sources and papers in international journals (e.g. Journal of Modern Greek Studies). I don't see how you can claim I have "mentioned no source documents". Perhaps you mean by that primary sources? But working directly from primary sources is "original research" in the WP sense. Can you please cite some modern, reputable sources for your position? --Macrakis 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am taling about primary sources, not just modern. How can primary sources, across the ages, on the self-perception and perception of the Greeks be original research? Those are the expample I have given above; I am not sure what more I can do. Should we re-define 'primary research' for WP as, material after 1950 (or whatever date)? The expertise of the people you mention (and they are experts) is mostly 20th century. Try this website: [24]. Politis 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I think you are misunderstanding the terms "primary sources" and "original research". Primary sources are the raw material of historical study, original documents from the period under study. They are of course crucial to any historical research. However, they mean very little without interpretation -- that is what the whole discipline of history is all about. The published results of historical research are "secondary sources". Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reports on the scholarly literature, that is, on the secondary sources which are the result of historical research. Undertaking original research by trying to interpret the raw materials of history directly constitutes "original research" (see WP:NOR) and is against WP policy.

2) Their are various periods of expertise represented in the list of scholars. Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson worked mostly on the 19th century. Barth, an anthropologist who has largely defined the current approach to ethnic definition, worked on contemporary societies. Bien, Veremis, and Prevelakis talk mostly about the 19th and 20th centuries. --Macrakis 22:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"My fellow-editors, I would strongly recommend that you read the modern literature on nationalism and ethnicity,"
No Macrakis, this is not about the modern French-promoted notion of nation-states and nationality, it's about the ancient notion of ethnos which defines the unity of a people in terms in of a variable cultural characteristic. Miskin 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis and Macrakis, don't revert again, I won't let it pass. The sources do not state "regards themselves" hence it won't pass into the article. In fact I'm going to personally clean up this article from all related edits made by close-minded and imperfectly educated people. Miskin 15:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

Whether by adoption or descent, modern Greeks do inherit Greek history. That isn't to say they're the sole inheritors, nor that they are necessarily the rightful ones. Whether or not we accept the continuity, we ought to include some indication that it is not clear-cut or unquestioned. Does the following version offend/please anyone?

The modern Greeks inherit much of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures. The history and culture of Greece has been chronicled for over 3,500 years by its inhabitants and foreign observers alike, and most modern Greeks would claim descent from this tradition. Over the millennia, the self-perception of the Greeks and the definition of Greekness has varied enormously (as indeed have all identifications of nationality), and while there is still debate over the extent to which classical culture is preserved, there remains a definite kernel of continuity.

Although in classical times, Greece was in no way a single political entity, but a collection of rival poleis or city-states, it was effectively unified subsequently under Alexander, Rome, and later rulers, and a common culture has been acknowledged in one form or another since the 8th century BC at the latest. And with the emergence, in the late 18th century, of the nation-state, and its gradual consolidation, Greece became the first modern country to come into being both as a nation-state and breaking away from an empire. In the process, Greekness was, for many, redefined along the lines of what some people call romantic nationalism.

--Nema Fakei 19:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice effort. Politis 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a good effort.i cannot understand one thing though...And with the emergence, in the late 18th century, of the nation-state, and its gradual consolidation, Greece became the first modern country to come into being both as a nation-state and breaking away from an empire.

We have to have in mind that the Byzantine Empire ended its life as a greek nation-state.--Hectorian 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is obscure and I was the one who wrote most of that. Greece was the first country to emerge as an 'independent' nation-state from an empire, even though empires were consolidating (Dutch, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, British, etc...). And even Greece was dreaming and negotiating of breaking out of the its small, nation-state status into a Byzantine empire - the Megali Idea (RIP 1922). Politis 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult for an American to believe that first claim, we having emerged from an empire by 1783...Septentrionalis 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that may be an anachronism, considering that the concept of "nation" did not exist as we perceive it today back then. --Latinus 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greece was not unified under Alexander, unless you regard Sparta as no part of Greece. (In any case, this should credit his father.) Both the League of Corinth and Alexander's empire broke up at his death; neither included Magna Graecia. The Byzantine Empire (setting aside the matter that it ended as at least three states) was never a nation state; it was always a universal empire. Septentrionalis 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say the US emerged in 1776, as the spirit of revolution and independence had taken hold. But was Britain an empire as we, for instance, Spain and Portugal? Anyway, first is not important. Politis 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was no more a universal empire nor less a nation than medieval France or medieval England were. And the argument that Greek nationalism arose in the middle ages is a perfectly valid one, as there exists a plethora of contemporary accounts testifying the existence of Byzantine nationalism, especialy in reference to foreigners. In fact, the Greek War of Independence in 1821, began as a Byzantine uprising that transformed into a Greek revolution only after being influenced by the French Revolution and its conception of Romanticism (that sought a return to the notion of classical antiquity and therefore ancient Greece). Colossus 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither the medieval Kingdom of France nor medieval Kingdom of England were "nations". The ideology of nationalism had not been invented, and they were certainly not ethnically or linguistically homogeneous (consider the Welsh, the Bretons, the Flemish, the Languedocians). If you follow the sense-development of the word "nation" in the OED, you'll see that it refers not to a political unit (the Kingdoms) but to what we would call an "ethnic group" today. For example, one quote says that the English king's army is composed of many nations (e.g. Spaniards etc.).

I don't know what you mean by calling the Greek War of Independence a "Byzantine uprising". Can you cite any modern scholars (publishing in international journals) who put things in those terms?

As for the influence of western romantic thinking about ancient Greece, as Benedict Anderson says (Imagined Communities, p. 72):

By the middle of the eighteenth century... German, French and English scholars ... were recreating a glittering, and firmly pagan, ancient Hellenic civilization. In the last quarter of the century, this 'past' became increasingly accessible to a small number of young Greek-speaking Christian intellectuals, most of whom had studied or travelled outside the confines of the Ottoman Empire. Exalted by the philhellenism at the centres of Western European civilization, they undertook the 'debarbarizing' of the modern Greeks, i.e., their transformation into beings worthy of Pericles and Socrates.

--Macrakis 15:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This oversimplified description of the Greek national movement reveals to me that you don't know much on the topic Macrakis. The Greek population under the Ottoman Empire was extremely more complex than you think, it wasn't just a mass of monkeys who expected to be enlightened by the French-educated Greek intellectual. This kind existed of course, but it was not even a representative. Learn your subject better before posing as an expert. Miskin 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert. I am only reporting reputable scholarly opinion. If you recall, WP policy is to report on mainstream scholarly positions. If you are an expert, let's see the citations to your published work. If not, cite the scholarly literature and cut out the posing. Bizarrely, you keep claiming in edit comments that my additions are "unsourced", and then you remove the source references!!! --Macrakis 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally asked. Which part exactly would you like me to source for you? Miskin 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis I reverted your edits because they simply don't reflect reality, only personal (erroneous) opinion. How many Byzantine sources have you read, if any? Niketas Chroniatis? Anna Comnena? The Byzantines didn't regard themselves "Romans" in the way that we perceive the term. During religious debates of medieval times, the main argument of the Byzantine priests towards the Latins, was that "The Romans killed Christ". Furthermore, to claim that the Byzantines didn't view themselves "Greek" but Roman, is as naive as to claim in 500 years from now, that the Americans viewed themselves as the natives of the American continent and claimed to be the heir to Indian americans. The word "Roman" had a special definition in Byzantium, and the heritage of Rome was strictly political. This is reflected in medieval sources, where Byzantines refer to themselves as "Romans" when they speak to each other, and as Greeks when they speak to foreigners. Last but not least, you won't find one Western or Slavic source referring to Byzantium as 'Rome' and the Byzantines as 'Romans'. The only terms used are "Greeks", "Greece" and "Empire of the Greeks". Miskin 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Some sources hold that the modern Greeks are descended from the ancient Greeks alone; this view (which ignores, for example, the Italian resettlement of Corinth under Julius Caesar), is an overreaction to the discredited nineteenth-century view that the two were not related at all."
Honestly, who's coming up with that stuff? Isn't anybody concerned about sources anymore? I'm removing this sentence for the obvious reasons, and I'm suggesting the removal of the entire section. It serves at nothing and it's not present in the other ethnic articles. Did any of you know that Marseilles was recently resettled almost entirely by Arab populations? Yet I don't see anybody mentioning it, or even care to mention it in any French related articles. I don't understand what is it that makes Greeks an exception. What is it that bothers people so much to examine whether Greeks are the pure 100% racial ancestors of the the ancients? Is there any valid, unbiased argument to support this attitude, or should I continue removing POV from the article? Lastly, I still find it incredibly ridiculous that some people are sad enough to make implications of Fallmerayer. I mean besides the political motivation and relative historical ignorance which prevailed from his part, he's only written a theory on the Peloponnesian Greeks, who constituted 1/4 of the Asiatic Greeks alone and 1/8 of the entire Greek population. There's no proof nor reason to justify a section on the supposed "racial Greek continuity", get over it and go on with your lives. Miskin 15:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that the refounding of Corinth was an Italian colony? If not, what is the point here? Using cranial indices as decisive of nationality, in the fashion of 1902? Septentrionalis 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Noone denies that the romans colonised Corinth at some point of history.but it is rather ridiculous this refounding to be used in an attempt to show that the modern greeks are not descendants of the ancient greeks.if u are so concerned in such things and if u believe that such minor-scale colonizations changed the demography of a nation,why don't u mention in the French people article that the modern french (->Marseille),or that the modern egyptians(->Alexandreia),or Syrians(->Seleukid Empire),or Pakistanis are partly greek?your attempt to underestimate the lineage between ancient and modern greeks is obvious.such colonisations had minor impact on the greeks,as they had minor impact on the other people as well.--Hectorian 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the actual text; I have never argued the view you ascribe to me, and I oppose it. There are two over-simplifications in conflict here, and I believe neither of them. Fallmerayer's is (largely and fortunately) dead, which is why it gets a clause and no links. The assertion that the Greeks are descended only from the ancient Greeks is not quite as silly, and far less blood-stained, but equally false. Septentrionalis 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i was wrong about the views i ascribed to u:)but i do not really think there is reason to mention this small colonisation.what for?to mislead the people in assuming that the romans had a greater infux on greek people than they really had?noone believes that the modern greeks are pure descendants(apart from a few racist nationalists)!but i think that it is far enough just to mention the invaders of greece,not all the minor settlements that existed.this is not a case of 'ethnic purity',but a case of importance: the greek colonisations in the whole mediterranean are not used in the respective articles in an attempt to overestimate the greek contribution on those people.and i want the same to happen here for the foreign settlements in greece,simply because in both cases the colonisations did not change the demography in general.--Hectorian 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then we agree: both extreme theories are racist and false. Why not say so? Septentrionalis 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if those who say that the Greek Revolution of 1821 was motivated and shaped as a national revolution under the infuence of the French Revolution and Romanticism,if they know that the revolution of 1821 was the succesful,but not the first one.there were numerous revolutions during the 400 years of ottoman rule.the french revolution and romanticism were indeed great inspirations for the greeks,but attempts to create a nation-state (national uprisings) started as soon as Constantinoupolis fell to the Turks,simply because Byzantium ended its history as a nation-state.the historians mentioned above by Miskin clearly show that this was the case even before the 15th century.even the epic poem of Digenis Akritas composed somewhere between 10th and 11th centuries,was for the medieval greeks exactly like what was for the ancient greeks the Iliad.if someone has read it,can realise that greek nationalism started a lot earlier...--Hectorian 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Digenis Akritas is a perfect example of the actual Byzantine policy: anyone, Arab, Isaurian, Armenian, Slav, is a perfectly acceptable Byzantine - provided they are fellow believers in the Orthodox faith, and subject to the Five Four Patriarchs. Consider Akritas's parents and his wife. This tradition continued as late as 1923, when the followers of Sabbatai Zevi were removed from Salonika to Constantinople as Muslims, and the Othodox Pontic Greeks were taken to Greece; the Romaic-speaking Pontic Muslims were left behind. Septentrionalis 16:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether they know anything about the revolution and its impact to the balance of powers at all. The "Ottoman" section of the article is currently at a ridiculously poor state (which is understandable as Macrakis and his buddies have been running the article). I'll take personal care of it in one of those days. Miskin 16:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Running the article"? That's news to me. I'd be happy to see more and better discussion in the Ottoman section, well-sourced from current scholarly works, please. --Macrakis 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike your buddies, I didn't plan to make unsourced edits. I'm leaving for now Macrakis, try not to massacre the article a lot. Miskin 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it is good to ask only for current scholarly works when talking about history.the contemporary works are always closer to the facts.--Hectorian 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the contemporary works (primary sources) are the raw material of historical inquiry. Would you consider Nixon's memoirs to be "closer to the facts" than a study done by a historian using multiple sources (including his memoirs), criticizing them, putting them in context, and synthesizing them? Documents are written for a reason, and their meaning only emerges with a full understanding of their context. --Macrakis 17:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who's modern historian's work u will use.if u use someone whose political motivations are well known (e.g.Volmerayer) u are not going to be neutral as well.also,the contemporary historians doesn't mean that they did not do their own research(otherwise they wouldn't be historians).their should be considered important cause they lived in the time that these things happened.of course,your example about Nixon is not a good one,since he was not a historian,but a politician(and additionally,not a successful one:)...)--Hectorian 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fallmerayer (I assume that's who you're talking about) was an early 19th-century writer whose thesis about the ethnic composition of the Greeks was already refuted by the late 19th century (why does he always come up as a straw man?). I would hardly call that "current scholarly work".

Of course, contemporary (primary) sources have a unique value, but even if they are written by people we call "historians" or "chroniclers", they cannot be taken literally. Herodotus, for example, reports that Xerxes had 5 million men; this is clearly impossible. Most medieval chroniclers worked for the rulers, and manipulated history to place the current ruler and his lineage in the best light, while disparaging rivals. Some excellent sources (e.g. De Administrando Imperio) were in fact written by the rulers themselves (in this case Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos). All of these sources are useful, but can't be taken literally.

When you interpret and synthesize primary sources, you are acting as a historical researcher. The Wikipedia does not rely on its editors to be professional historians, and for that reason explicitly forbids such original research. Instead, it asks us to source interpretations and synthesis from reputable current scholarly work. That is not just my preference, it is Wikipedia policy. --Macrakis 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wikipedia policies.as far as u use neutral and reliable sources,it is fine by me.but if u use works of scholars who are clearly motivated by anti-hellenic feelings in order to change history,i will have to revert your edits,only because they cannot be NPOV.Btw,i said:e.g.Fallmerayer-although i spelled his name wrong...i meant 'such kind of historians' not only him.--Hectorian 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood WP:NPOV. NPOV does not depend on "neutral sources", and it certainly doesn't mean that WP only include positions which are agreeable to a particular political or national group. NPOV depends on reporting all reputable scholarly positions on an issue. In this case, the position of major scholars such as the ones I've mentioned above—even if they disagree with other sources—should be reported in the article. As for "motivated by anti-Hellenic feelings", please don't be so paranoid. Besides scholars like Anderson, Gellner, et al. who have no special connection to Greece, most of those writing about Greece either are Greeks themselves or philhellenes. Just because their conclusions don't correspond to the Greek civics class version of history does not make them anti-Hellenic. By the way, most serious historians also question the U.S. civics class version of U.S. history.... --Macrakis 19:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis,i am sure that u have completely understood what i said.I know what NPOV means.and i also want all the positions to be included in the articles.but in order to be honest to the readers and to ourselves,we have to give to each theory the acceptance it deserves.u may want to include a scholar that belongs to the minority of the academic community...but u have to say that his theories are not widely accepted.also,u should not include the theories and words of a scholar in a place in the article by presenting them as if it is the one and undisputed fact.u first have to refer to the widely accepted view of history,and then to mention the POV of the minority of scholars(and apparently yours too)--Hectorian 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that Pmaderson entered the debate. You sound like a reasonable person so please accept when I tell you with all the respect that you are editing without real knowledge. What you are writing is very out of turn. Thanks. Politis 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Politis has (somewhat belatedly) noticed my edits here. I trust he will be reverting himself shortly; reversion on the basis of false claims about the edit history is tolerably close to vandalism.

His remedy is to supply real evidence from real sources. He may convince me. Vain repetitions and arbitrary deletions will not. Septentrionalis 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

People here need to distinguish between nationalism and the nation state. The former was a product of the middle ages and did exist in such states as the Byzantine Empire, England or France. The later was a product of 18th century Europe, in particular of Enlightenment France. Medieval nationalism is not a concept as awkward as it seems. Therefore, neither is Greek nationalism in the form of Byzantine nationalism. Colossus 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of Anna Comnena, whose attitude to the heretic barbarian Franks strongly resembles that of Sidonius Apollinaris to the heretic barbarian Burgundians, but if it has the support of a reliable secondary source, it certainly belongs in the article. Septentrionalis 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources written or translated into English would be a courtesy to the reader. Septentrionalis 16:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the present?

Apologies for the intrusion, but it's occurred to me that we may be going about this in quite the wrong way. We seem simply to be defining the Greeks in terms an essay of the history of Greek nationalism (the text I posted above included). Who are the Greeks of today? At the moment, we begin by defining Greeks solely as an ethnic group (Is a non-ethnic-greek citizen of Greece not a Greek?) - then we proceed to describe the socio-political history of the region. I'm quite happy for the article to discuss the history of Greek nationalism (or whatever you want to call it), but I'm worried that the article reads more like a narrative than an encyclopaedia article. What I propose is that we take the points we've already got (subject to above discussions), and divide them up across the possible ways of defining Greekness: Ethnicity, Culture, Political unity, Religion, Language, and so on. That way, we can include the histories of each without obscuring the different points being made. --Nema Fakei 13:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable approach. Septentrionalis 16:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

POV censorship

Miskin, why did you remove the reference to Bien's article? Peter Bien is a well-known professor at Dartmouth College who has been researching and publishing on Greek literature and history for decades. He is one of the founders of the Modern Greek Studies Association. The article was published in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies, a highly reputable journal -- indeed, the only international journal on modern Greek studies. Apparently you feel free to exclude POVs which disagree with your superior personal judgement. --Macrakis 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything I removed was in fact POV, under the accusation of giving the article "special treatment". Which part are you referring to? I didn't remove any references to Greek literature. Miskin 16:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the bibliographic reference to Bien's article. I do not know what you mean by "under the accusation of giving the article 'special treatment'"; can you translate that into English? Recall that the principle of NPOV is not to include no POVs, but to include all reputable ones. I will restore the reference to the Bien article. --Macrakis 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Restore it, I'm curious to see what you're talking about. Miskin 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even remember seeing this. Was that all?? Miskin 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant talk

Just like it was proposed by User:Politis, and agreed by me and hopefully by all other editors, this section has been deleted for the reasons of 1.Main discussion continuity, 2.Some things are better left behind. If anyone feels sooooo curious to read what unimportant talk was here, s/he can just see the history of this talk page, right before my deletion. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Some ambiguities - time to reorganise points?

hi guys,

I've just been observing some of the recent discussion and editing in this article, and I have a few suggestions. Whilst I respect all of your points of view, I feel that because of the diversity of points of view, the article could be confusing for a newcomer to the subject. For example, I noticed a couple of contradictions or ambiguities -

"The modern Greeks consider themselves to be the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures"

This line is perfectly true and reasonable, but it could also be construed to posses a subtly pejorative tone. I also think that "considers" creates some ambiguity with the "Modern and Ancient Greeks" section, which is high modality:

"Most modern ethnologists believe that there is a strong and continuous tradition linking ancient and modern Greeks genetically, linguistically and culturally over the millennia..."

Perhaps the ambiguity arises from the confusion of the unified identity of the Modern Greek nation (ex. Parrigopoulos or Caras drawing together the connections between periods in Greek history to create a amalgamated, solid ideology of Greek identity; sustaining a modern nation state), with the more fluid, but nonetheless persistant, presence of Greek culture and society in the Mediterranean? Thomas Gallant, a contemporary and well respected scholar of Modern Greece says, "The problem is not that Greece has too much history but that there are two related but still distinct histories involved - one being the history of the Greek people which, depending on how one defines the term Greek, extends back thousands of years and the other being the history of the Greek nation state, which has a relatively short history."(Thomas W. Gallant, "Brief Histories: Modern Greece").

On the one hand, I think it's important to establish the key transformations and differences between periods of Greek history - changes in government, administration, religion, worldview and self-perception - on the other hand, I think it's also important to establish the manifest continuities in the Greek experience - common language literature and ideas, common geography, society and the persistance of the diaspora. This would then allow the reader to make up their own mind, and also I think, to clarify an issue which has the tendency to descend into a nasty excercise in name calling.

What if we created a new section to replace "Modern and Ancient Greeks" and "Identity of the Greek people", entitled: "Change and Continuity in Greek identity" (or something to that effect), so that the issue can be discussed more directly and neutrally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byz (talk • contribs) 17 March 2006, 12:55

Sounds great. Are you new here, by the way? Welcome on board! Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lukas,

Thanks! I've only just signed up as a member, but I've been reading Wikipedia for a while now. I thought it was time to join in on the discussion :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byz (talk • contribs) 17 March 2006, 13:31

Good. Shall we all try an experiment? Let's all of us who were involved in the dispute step back for a moment, and give Byz a day or two time to come up with an outline for a new version. Sometimes this kind of fresh air is just what's needed to overcome such an impasse. By the way, Byz, could you please sign your contributions? Just put four tildes (~~~~) behind your text, that automatically turns into your name and time stamp. -- Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Septentrionalis 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to give it a try. Byz 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome Byz! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is a second draft. I still need to put in footnotes and do all the appropriate referencing. Also I am not entirely happy yet with the "Resolution" section - so feedback would be great. Thanks guys.

GREEK IDENTITY: DEFINITIONS

Delineating the Greek Experience:

The unique region in which Greek speakers have lived since antiquity has exerted a formative influence on their cultures. Greece and the Aegean are at once Mediterranean and Balkan; neither wholly western nor wholly eastern, and as stepping-stones between Europe and western Asia, the region has been exposed to major political, religious, cultural and demic transformations. The history of the land and the people who have occupied it is of rich syncretism. It is plausible then, to speak of a single Greek culture, or an enduring Greek identity? How then, do we delineate Greek history?

The common threads of Greek history can be seen as language and a continuously developing literary culture, society, and common geography. The key transformations that distinguish periods in the history of Greek speaking peoples can be seen as religion, self-perception and worldview, and administration and organization. Yet even here, the issues are not so simply resolved. Despite the definite transformation of values from paganism to Christianity, for example, the new religion was largely Hellenised – brought into the fold of Greek thinking; and on the other hand, despite its unusual level of continuity, the Greek language has still experienced resounding changes.

Greek identity:

The common threads, which bind Greek history, do not necessarily correspond to the existence of common self-perception. Greek speaking people have throughout history considered themselves in many different and often sharply defined contexts: as subjects of the Mycenaean civilisation, as members of the various Poleis, as Hellenes, as Romans and Christians, as members of the Millet I Rum, and as modern Europeans. The diversity of these perceptions, the conflicts between them, and the richness of their associated histories, has been, both a boon and a blessing to modern Greeks.

The intellectual and political currents that dominated the period of Greek independence from 1921 onwards began the consolidation and modernisation of Greece. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of the nation state and the need for a centralised identity required Greeks to look at their history retrospectively.

The Wests’ admiration of Classical Greece helped to shape the fledgling Greek states preference for Classical Greek culture. However, the tensions between the pagan Hellenic, and the Christian Romaic; the ancient and the medieval heritages in Greek culture, needed to be resolved. Paparrigopoulos and Caras responded to this need, expressing the notion of the continuity of the Greek nation throughout history. It bridged the perceived gaps between ancient, medieval and modern Greece, and invented the notion of a shared destiny for the Greek people. In unifying Greek identity for the modern state, a new identity was ultimately forged. This identity was reflexive to a vast history in an entirely new way; “…as Just, Herzfield, and others have noted, all sense of it being an ‘invention’ was lost. Instead an identity grounded in ‘history’ became timeless and primordial. As a popular expression has it, ‘we have always been Greeks’”.

Resolution:

Greek identity has been fluid and changing throughout much of the history of Greek-speaking peoples, and these changes symbolise divisions within the greater framework of Greek history. These diverse experiences are not simply a source of confusion. They have given to the Greek people great cultural wealth and a source of pride, stimulating further creation, development and participation in the modern world.

Byz 15:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks a lot for this. Good stuff. If I may make a suggestion, perhaps the style and structure should be tightened up a bit, it currently feels rather more essay-like than the typical encyclopedia article. Do you want us to join back in helping with that, or perhaps have another go yourself first? Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do join in - I'd really appreciate that. Byz 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to resolve issues; see the passages of WP:NPOV on presenting all sides of an issue. But the middle paragraphs of this seem a reasonable starting point, so I am inserting them, in the hope that they will inspire future text. Septentrionalis 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On Byzantine Greeks

Pmanderson said: "..."
In the Ottoman Empire, it would be even easier. Any citizen who converts to Islam is automatically an Ottoman citizen, i.e. a Turk. That of course doesn't mean that the Ottoman Empire wasn't Turkish. Similarly today, any person who's born in France, is a French national, i.e. a French. That doesn't mean that France is not a French state now does it? Blatantly in the Byzantine Empire, any person who has a Romaic citizenship, takes up Orthodoxy and the Greek language, is a Greek. This is a process which applies to almost every state in the history of the world (except perhaps the 3rd Reich), so I really don't see any logic on what you're trying to say. Perhaps we should look at some articles from Britannica, beginning with Digenis:
"Digenis Akritas, the ideal medieval Greek hero, is a bold warrior of the Euphrates frontier, the son of a Saracen emir converted to Christianity by the daughter of a Byzantine general; he was a proficient warrior by the age of three and spent the rest of his life defending the Byzantine Empire from frontier invaders. The feeling for nature and strong family affections that permeate the epic anticipate the great Cretan national romance, Erotókritos (mid-17th century) by Viitzéntzos Kornáros, and much modern Greek popular poetry"
Surprise, Surprise! Digenis takes up Christianity and becomes a Greek! How come he doesn't become a Slav or a Saracen or an Armenian, I thought in your book 'Byzantine' could mean anything. And look what it says later on, Kornaros is inspired by a Greek hero to contribute on modern Greek poetry. What's modern Greek poetry doing in the 17th century? According to Macrakis and you, the "Greek" natioanlity is a product of the 19th century which stems from "romantic nationalism" and nothing more. I think an initial point is made on who's passing POV into the article and who is making edits based on sources.
Let's take another look on what Britannica says about Byzantium, in e.g. ine Empire":
"Even though the Byzantine intellectual firmly believed that civilization ended with the boundaries of his world, he opened it to the barbarian, provided that the latter (with his kin) would accept Baptism and render loyalty to the emperor. Thanks to the settlements that resulted from such policies, many a name, seemingly Greek, disguises another of different origin: Slavic, perhaps, or Turkish."
Well, well more surprises here. The name "Greek" distinguishes an "ethnic Byzantine" from a Byzantine national of foreign origin. Doesn't that refute your claims on Byzantine meaning anything from Greek to Chinese? I think it does, and it also proves that the Greek ethnic identity never fell out of existence. But let's have a look at some more quotes and articles on those 'Byzantines'. What did non-Byzantines used to call them?
"To Frederick the alliance between the Holy Roman Empire and what he called “the kingdom of the Greeks” was not one between equals. Manuel launched a vain invasion of the Norman kingdom on his own account in 1154, but it was too late for a revival of Byzantine imperialism in the West.".
What do you know, the German Emperor (or should I say 'Holy Roman'?) referred to Byzantium as the Empire of the Greeks. Did you even know that the entire European continent (Latin and Slavic) referred to Byzantium as 'Greece' and its people as 'Greeks'? How come they didn't refer to them as "Slavs" or "Armenians"? I think another point is made, and your theories on Byzantium being an "ethnically neutral" civilization are officially a POV.
From the article "Greek Fire":
"More specifically the term refers to a mixture introduced by the Byzantine Greeks in the 7th century AD."
From the article "Hamdanid Dynasty":
"Aleppo and Homs had been won about 945 by Abū Taghlib's uncle, Sayf ad-Dawlah, who spent most of his reign (c. 943–967) defending his frontiers (from northern Syria to Armenia) against the Byzantine Greeks."
Why not 'Byzantine Slav' or 'Byzantine Arab', have you ever wondered? Do I even need to continue pasting modern references? I have entire books if you want. The term "Byzantine" was initially coined in order to "distinguish medieval Greek from ancient Roman history" (Georg Ostrogorsky. "History of the Byzantine State"), and today terms as "byzantines", "Greeks" and "Byzantine Greeks" are used interchangeably. Its contemporaries referred to the empire strictly as "Greek Kingdom" or "Greece" and to its people as "Greeks". This is factual information which I just sourced, hence your previous unsourced claims on the nature of the Byzantine Civilisation (supposedly not having a special affiliation to Greek) falls under POV. Miskin 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm making those reverts

Simply because they're POV and unsourced. As I proved above, pmanderson's edits and motives are based on his personal beliefs (or insecurities), which are obviously irrelevant to wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have no place in the article. Pmanderson constantly aims to point out how modern Greeks are not the pure descendants of the ancients. The article makes such silly and simple-minded claims, therefore pmanderson's overtones have no place here. There's not a single ethnic article which is treated that way (focusing on racial continuity), and apart from pmanderson's insecurities and Macrakis' naiveness, I don't see any reasons why should this article be the exception.
Miskin

This is a lie, on several grounds.

• The text from which Miskin unilaterally reverted did not focus on racial continuity.
• Other articles do have, as this one does, a couple of sentences on the subject; compare English people.

Septentrionalis 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it from the start:
I'm reverting the currently POV content of the section "identity of the Greek people" to its previous version, which was based on the following Britannica article:
"Greece lies at the juncture of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is heir to the heritages of classical Greece, the Byzantine Empire, and nearly four centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule. From ancient Greece the modern country inherited a sophisticated culture and a language that has been documented for almost three millennia. The language of Periclean Athens in the 5th century BC and the present-day language of the Greeks are recognizably one and the same; few languages can demonstrate such continuity."
As we can all see, there is no "Greeks regard themselves", simply "Greeks are". I can provide more sources on what "Greeks are regarded by others" vs "Greeks regard themselves", but it's not necessary at the moment. I'm reverting the current POV version.
Secondly, on the section "Modern and ancient Greeks", I strongly support to completely remove it, as I don't see any "English and Anglo-Slaxons" or "French and the Franks" in similar articles. However, until a removal is decided, I'm removing the ridiculously POV edits of pmanderson on Corinth's "recolonisation by Italians". First of all the term "Italian" could at the time mean Greek, Roman, Etruscan, Celt etc. Hence besides the fact that Italian doesn't cross out the chances of recolonising the area with Greeks, I'm removing it because I don't see anything relevant on the much larger scale immigration of Arabs, Indians, Polish, Portuguese, Pakistanis, Chinese (and the list goes on) into London, Paris and Marseilles. Furthermore as I have previously proved, pmanderson's edits are coming from a biased and unsourced point of view. This article shouldn't be left unattended and unsourced information should be reverted with no prior discussion. I'll keep reverting every of pmanderson's attempts to pass POV into the article, and I'm willing to take this as far as ArbCom. Miskin 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I regard this as a single nationalist editor attempting to impose his favored text against consensus. Dispute resolution is not intended to be used as a threat in this manner. I do not insist upon my edit being the basis for compromise, however, and shall install a tightened version of Byz's, since his present text is more like an essay than an article.. Septentrionalis 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You make me laugh. You haven't provided one single source for your claims, and yet you dare to characterise a credible source such as Britannica (which by chance I happen to have under my disposal) as my "favourite text". Thsi is pretty desperate, not to mention pathetic. For the obvious reasons, I'm reverting, and if you continue with this poor editing behaviour, be sure that I'm willing to take this dispute further. Miskin 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin's claims that he is doing this to remove unsourced research, however, are disingenuous. Macrakis, of course, cited his sources in his edit summaries; and Miskin's text has no sources whatever. Septentrionalis 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My source is the 2006 Britannica edition, it's even added in the "bibliography". Do you want me to make an exact copy-paste in the article. Miskin 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was original research; I said it cited no sources; and it doesn't. Septentrionalis

If you keep on insisting that I haven't cited any sourced, I'm gonna have to assume that you have a mental condition. Miskin 18:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC) By the way I haven't reverted any of Macrakis' sourced edits, so stop repeating it for no reason. Macrakis is old enough to support his own edits. Furthermore, such attitude reveals clearly how biased and desperate you are on keeping your POV on some imaginarly question on racial continuity. Miskin 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin has provided a lot of sources from contemporary writings(Digenis) to the worldwide respected Britannica.Honestly Pmanderson,i do not know why u insist so much on your edits.they are unsourced and treat the Greeks differently that the other groups are treated.(i had made a comment on your talk page how a similar edit would look in the Scottish people).if u wish to make everything u can to show discontinuity between the ancient,byzantine and modern greeks,u must do the same for all the other people whose history starts at least from the medieval times.--Hectorian 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin's use of the Digenis Akritas proves chiefly that he has not read it; what Greek patriotic history (vintage 1972) he read about it in, I could not begin to guess. As for Scottish_people#A_complex_heritage, it says much more about the immigration into Scotland than this article ever has. Septentrionalis 17:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That Greek patriotic history is called "Britannica 2006". Not that it matters, but when Miskin was reading Digenis, you were still listening to Michael Jackson. Miskin 15:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin doesn't have a POV use of 'Digenis Akritas'. Miskin has only been quoting from Britannica's articles, nothing more nothing less. Everything you say beyond that is POV. Deal with it, you were wrong, the sources prove you wrong, hence your claims are POV and cannot stand in wikipedia, save them for your personal friends and family. You're the one who's biased here, and the more you try to defend sourced information with POV, the more you prove it. Miskin 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well,i have read 'Digenis' in all 4 existing editions and in the language it was written,not from a translation...It is clearly a greek poem,the epic poem of medieval greeks(id est byzantines).About the scottish people's article,it still states that scottish are celts,without attempts to provoke their continuity.--Hectorian 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Of ocurse it was written in Greek; who has denied it?
• But the line it draws between Us and Them is between Christian and "pagan", not between Greek and non-Greek. Any character who converts crosses it; and there is no more suggestion that the characters do not all speak the language of the poet than there is in Homer. Septentrionalis 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• And you will observe that Scottish people is {{totally disputed}}. The claim that the people of Lothian are Celts is meaningless, because who is now a Celt is not well enough defined to be answerable. Most of the definitions of Celt would depend on evidence, which largely no longer exists, about migrations before Scotland has the Tweed as its boundary. Insofar as the evidence does exist, much of it suggests that many Lothianites and Border men are descended from the Angles of Bernicia. Septentrionalis 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did not say that u deny it,i just wanted to point that i did not use a maybe 'disputed' translation to read it.
• Digenis was written in 10th-11th century.there were no pagans at that time.the usage of the language spoken by the characters of a poetic work can be explained by the formulas used(unless u mean that the Trojans were greeks cause they appear to speak greek)
  • And the use of "pagan" for Muslims was common all over Europe. That's why I put "pagan" in quotes. The important point is that it was a religious, not an ethnic line. Septentrionalis 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

are we having any form of misunderstanding here?religion played a very important role in the middle ages,but it was not always a religious issue.Germans absorbed slavic peoples upon their chistianization,and Russians many other populations after christianizing them...but they still are germanic and slavic peoples and inheritors of their medieval states respectively!is this so difficult to understand that the modern greeks are also the descendants and inheritors of the ancient and the byzantines?--Hectorian 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• i hope u do not wanna see this article been 'disputed' too.the Scottish people continue to be celts,even though they mixed with other people.and the modern greeks continue to be descendants of the ancient and medieval greeks,although mixed too.noone claims ethnic purity!but u cannot say that byzantines were not greeks...u are not backed up by sources...--Hectorian 18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

but why don't we look things from the historic point of view?Roman empire included large and diverse populations,but it was the Romans those who had it.The Napoleonic French Empire included bretons,basques,corsicans,etc,but it is the french who inherited it.Russia has many ethnic groups,but it is still the state of the Russians.their is no way that someone can prove that the Byzantine empire was not the Empire of the Greeks and that it is not them who inherited it.--Hectorian 18:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A nation ruling over others, that's the definition of an Empire, which many people tend to confuse with our modern nation-states. That's why you see people like pmanderson go "d'oooh but there were other peoples living in the British Empire, it wasn't English!". Miskin 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• It wasn't English, it was British - as Lloyd George and Campbell-Bannerman should have shown you.
• On the other hand, no Indian, no African, no Arab, rose anywhere near the British Cabinet; but Armenians, Isaurians, Slavs were promoted to the highest levels in the Byzantine state; at least two of these provided an Emperor. Septentrionalis 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed,there have been Byzantine emperors with armenian and isaurian origins.but this,still,doesn't mean that Byzantine was not a greek emprire.why don't u try to tell the french that their empire was not french cause Napoleo was of italian origins or the russians that there was not such a thing as a russian empire cause Catherine the Great was german?--Hectorian 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to contemporary accounts there were pagans (Hellenes) in the 10-11th century in the southern tip of Peloponnese. Your judgement on Digenis remains a POV. I posted an article from a credible source and you still try babbling about your own theories. Maybe you haven't understood that wikipedia is NOT built on original research, and I think you need to have another look at its policies and guidelines. I think you're wasting your time with this person Hectorian, it's obvious by now that he simply refuses to accept the facts. Miskin 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Try "remains a summary of the textof Digenis Akritas". In fact, try reading the text. Until Akritas becomes part of the article, I see no reason to look up line numbers. Septentrionalis 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

celebrities with greek origin

I think it would be cool to put some pictures of celebrities with greek origin like Peter Andre (Andrea), jennifer Aniston, George Michael (Kyriakos Panagiotou), Paris Latsis and Tommy Lee (Thomas Leebas).

I just noticed that most of these greeks have been boyfriends of the hottest blonde celebrities: Jordan - Paris Hilton - Pamela Anderson!

Paris Latsis is a Greek national, not a celebrity of distant Greek origin like all the others you've mentioned. Anyway what you're asking is not compatible with the article. Miskin 14:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is the article List of Greeks , but i am not sure if pictures can be added there.btw,that article needs a real clean-up,in order to include only the prominent greeks,and not every greek young girl that sang once in her life!--Hectorian 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

--Kagan the Barbarian 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable

This article is a boat floating on Greek POV. After I am done with Turkey related articles; I'll come back for all of this. You have harassed Turkish articles enough, now it is time we deal with your POV pushing.

The only difference between a chauvinist Greek and a race obsessed SS is nobody takes the first seriously; that's why people consider your Aryan obsession cute and let you get away with it. But I won't. --Kagan the Barbarian 14:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do u always have to use such a language and make threats?if u have reliable sources contranticting the current edits,present them!...u seem rather funny...'your Aryan obsession','You have harassed Turkish articles enough','chauvinist Greek'...lol--Hectorian 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If only we could ask Lord Byron, a very famous Greek, what he thought of the modern Greeks... --Latinus 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am funny in ways you can't even imagine. Anyway, I shall give all of you a taste of 1922.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[25],[26],NY state recognises the pontian genocide committed by the turks.better gimme a taste of 2006,if u can.--Hectorian 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the UN is a better source. It confirms the figures [27] and says the following:

• This preplanned destruction over 67 years after 1916, of about 50 per cent of the Pontians constituted a genocide under the United Nations criteria (Article II of the Convention on genocide, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)).

--Latinus 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alas, those aren't the words of any official organ of the UN, but of a document submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights by the "International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status." I don't know what "special consultative status means" precisely. By the way, the document writes "6-7 years", not "67 years". Let's be careful in our use of documents. After all, much of the denial of Ottoman atrocities is based on misquoted documents.... --Macrakis 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That link won't open and I don't see numbers in what you posted. And what the hell is this supposed to mean: ...67 years after 1916...?

Is UN going back centuries in human history deciding what was genocide and what was not?--Kagan the Barbarian 20:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at - it must be one of those elusive links. Locate it like this [28]. --Latinus 19:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not submitted by UN, it is a so-called research submitted to UN by a so-called non-profit organization, International something something. Anyway, you should add about in front 350,000.

Good link by the way. I searched for Thrace and found plenty of things [29] Will be useful in the future. Cheers!--Kagan the Barbarian 20:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to say? My father used to say "Even if you find money on the road, always count first". This is what happens when you POV fork, not reading everything in the article except for sentences that will be helpful to your POV. So it isn't a UN statement after all, eh? Advice: Next time count before putting in your pocket.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a source, which appears on the UN website - can be used ;-) --Latinus 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On that website they put up nearly everything submitted to UN, it means nothing.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What means something, then? Turkey denies all atrocities committed by the Young Turk government (why, I have no idea) - we could, I suppose say that the "International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples" and the Greek government say that the numbers were 350,000. That is normally how things should be done, per WP:CITE. You're right, the article is currently presenting it as a statement of fact - needs NPOVing. --Latinus 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

and also the NY state that has officially recognised it:)--Hectorian 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

ok,of course UN is a better source.so,UN,at least one of the United States...lets see sources saying the opposite,Kagan.--Hectorian 17:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have to wait for a long time Hectorian. Miskin 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be alerted by this guy, he's just one of those frustrated editors who have never been over wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Miskin 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I'd ike to congratulate you for your great edit on the Ottoman Empire page. Can you please name me some non multi-ethnic empires? Because with that sentence you are suggesting non multi-ethnic empires exist as well? Should I wait for a reply?--Kagan the Barbarian 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Empire of Japan? --Latinus 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What did I just tell you? Count...

Japanese Empire

--Kagan the Barbarian 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about its early days - Japan was called an Empire from 1866 and it's head of state is still called "Emperor". --Latinus 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Japan is every colored region you see on that map, read the article for further detail. I know where you are coming from but you are mistaking federation with empire. And it doesn't matter what Emperor of Japan calls himself, it is a symbolic title.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the picture carefully - in 1870, the Empire of Japan was only on the islands which are part of Japan today, the red bit ;-) An ethnically homogenous empire - wow! --Latinus 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus :). Image of Ottoman Empire starts with that little beylik of theirs but that doesn't mean they were an empire in 1299, does it? They were a beylik. Same with this picture. Just admit you were wrong, don't be harsh on yourself, it is because of me, I am too good ;)--Kagan the Barbarian 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire 1299–1683

What evidence is there that this "beylik" was called itself an Empire then - we know that the 1870 Japanese Empire was called that because the article explicitly says that it called itself an Empire from the Meiji Restoration, which was only the current Japanese islands ;-) --Latinus 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez can declare himself emperor and Venezuela his empire, it means nothing to the rest of the world. Imperial Japan is that which occupied most of SE Asia; Ottoman Empire is that which conquered all of Eastern Mediterrenea. If they didn't do those, they wouldn't be regarded as empires today. Stop playing with words, just submit, you are losing my interest.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right kagan, an Empire by definition is multi-ethnic, but as this fact is mentioned in the Byzantine and Roman Empires, it should be mentioned in the Ottoman. Don't forget that the concept of being Ottoman, i.e. a Turk, depended on religion, not on ethnicity. Miskin 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, don't play with words. That addition to sentence is redundant, an empire is of course multi-ethnic. Do you say "water is wet"? Revert the article or I'll consider this intended vandalism.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese empire (like the Athenian Empire), is a particular case. Political independence was equivalent to nationality. Miskin 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kagan, check here in wp Empire. Read the second paragraph where it explicitly states "...a large, multi-ethnic state — or even an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or a small area like Switzerland —..." and educate yourself. Reading, can also help you develop decent communication skills so that you can present applicable examples!  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew I was right about Japan ;-) --Latinus 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you copy pasted the whole sentence instead of the part which serves you, everybody here would be able to see that sentence is actually comparing empires to federations like Japan and Switzerland.

"Compare the concept of "empire" with that of a federation, where a large, multi-ethnic state — or even an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or a small area like Switzerland — relies on mutual agreement amongst its component political units."

Reading the whole sentence may save your life sometimes. And you gave hope to Latinus for no reason. By the way the coding of your username occupies half of my screen.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not - I think it's comparing the Empire Japan, to the federation Switzerland (i.e. giving an example of both). Yes, that's what it's doing - you are misquoting the article. --Latinus 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you wish. Should we start another discussion for the usage of "or" or will you submit? --Kagan the Barbarian 23:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That exactly! Compare Empire to Federation. So all homogenious federations qualify too as an example. Now move this talk where it belongs, and get a larger screen. Will you?  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan's not a federation and never was - so it was an empire. --Latinus 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Creator of that article is a person like you and me. She/he may very well made a mistake.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You could also read Empire of Japan, ofcourse. Maybe your sceen is too small for reading articles too... NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that that fragment can be included in the Ottoman Empire article. --Latinus 23:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude please read before posting, you are making a fool of yourself:

"Politically, it covers the period from the enforced establishment of prefectures in place of feudal domains (廃藩置県; Hai-han Chi-ken) in July 14, 1871, through the expansion of Japan from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, up until the formal surrender in September 2, 1945, when the Instrument of Surrender was signed. Constitutionally, it refers to the period of November 29, 1890, to May 3, 1947."

--Kagan the Barbarian 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So the conclusion here is that politically, an ethnically homogenous empire can exist - an example being Japan. --Latinus 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Move this talk where it belongs, unless you believe that the Ottoman Empire belongs to Greeks.
2. Ask for renaming the article Empire of Japan.
3. Past or present, it still was an ethnically homogenious Empire at some point. Don't make me search for others too.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ppfftt, you want more:

"Although it was in the 1889 Constitution of the Empire of Japan that the title Empire of Japan was officially used for the first time, it was not until 1936 that the proper official title of the country was legalized."

For hours we are disccusing on one single exception that is Japan and even on that you are wrong. Revert the Ottoman Empire article so I show the same understanding to you in the future.

And Nikos, don't be too sensitive, your username looks fine, it is just the coding that sucks.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're entering a weird area, considering that Imperialism (Empire building) is the acquiring control over foreign entities - Japan must be an exception to this rule however, as according to Encarta: An emperor has ruled in Japan since about the 7th century and according to Columbia, The divine design of the empire - supposedly founded in 660 B.C. by the emperor Jimmu, a lineal descendant of the sun goddess and ancestor of the present emperor - was held as official dogma until 1945. So perhaps their perception of an "empire" is different to that in the West. This discussion is relevant in some way to is it necessary, or accurate to describe the Ottoman Empire as a non ethnically homogenous Turkish Empire. While it may be unnecessary, does it hurt? --Latinus 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Ē

As I said before Hugo Chavez can declare himself emperor and Venezuela his empire but that means nothing to the rest of the world. Legally recognized Empire of Japan is multi-ethnic and so is every single recognized empire in history. Adding that piece to the sentence is redundant, therefore should be removed for the improvement of the article. It is not about whether it hurts or not. Anyway, I am leaving.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kagan. I like it too. Could someone shorten the code. pleeeeease?

For the Japan point, I don't understand what you mean. The official name was legalised in 1936 and the same name still exists, when now the Empire is trully homoethnic. Also, Byzantine Empire was homoethnic at some points of its history wasn't it? And, really, what is the problem of including "multiethnic" to the Ottoman Empire article? I wouldn't care if it were added in all multiethnic ones for clarification. Why do you object? Wasn't it multiethnic? I think that is good. :-)  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely multi-religious would be more appropriate, considering the millet system... Septentrionalis 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you prove "widely", I'd really like to know

"The modern Greeks are widely considered to be the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures."

You can't prove widely with 4-5 books, you can't prove it with 6-7 websites. Widely is a serious word. You can say "It is widely believed Nazis were evil", you can say "It is widely believed George W. Bush is a genius" or not, but you can't say it widely believed Greeks are inheritors of the ancient Greeks. There is no such general belief, if there was we wouldn't even be discussing it here right now, nobody would be questioning it. At least make it "some". I wonder if I'll get any logical answer for this.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of a different way of saying it? Your wording implies that only Greeks see it that way, whereas everyone else points and laughs. That's clearly not the case... --Latinus 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think they are. Have you seen My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Kidding, put down the battle swords. Anyway, what about Greeks and some? Greeks and some authors? Greeks and some historians? if any.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple - "they have been considered by some" - I know it's a weasel word, but it is accurate, considering we can't ask everyone... --Latinus 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, best way to put it.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK -done. --Latinus 16:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as the Turks are widely considered inheritors of the Ottoman empire,as much as the modern chinese inheritors of their ancient empire,as much as the arabs inheritors of their empires and chaliphates,as much as the French inheritors of the Napoleonic empire and the Iranis inheritors of the Persian and the russians of the russian and etc etc etc...The Greeks are widely considered inheritors of theirs.i am changing it.--Hectorian 17:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

so,Pmanderson,according to the compromise u propose,only those who like the greeks agree with them.would u mind adding that for all the empires i've mentioned above?--Hectorian 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind. Wikipedia is inconsistent; let those articles work out their own Ate. You are reading an awful lot into a silence; can't you take the compromise as I intended it: those who accept the claim of inheritance tend to become Philhellene? Septentrionalis 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i doubt if that was your intention.not only those who are in favour of the greeks consider them inheritors of the byzantine and ancient civ.it seems that u will do all u can to prove the unproven:that the modern greeks(and their worldwide supporters) claim something that they should not.--Hectorian 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this; I have never said it. I would not contend with you about the finer implications of a text you had written in Demotic; please extend me the same courtesy. Septentrionalis 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't do this Hector, don't turn this into a case of nationalist chauvinism and pride. None of what you wrote made sense. Turks can claim to be inheritors of Ottomans but can't with Huns; Chinese consist of many ethnic groups, Arabs can claim to be inheritors of the Caliphates, Abbasid, blah blah dynasties but not ancient Egypt; Russians?? Dude, come on. As for Iranians look what happened to them Iranian peoples

Learn from some NPOV articles then honestly ask yourself:

Chinese_people

Italians

French people

PS Who is Pmanderson? Who are you talking to?

--Kagan the Barbarian 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i am talking to the user,Pmanderson,who made the last change claiming that only the greeks and philhellenes consider that.i am not talking from a nationalistic POV,but what i wrote makes perfect sense.why the turks are inheritors of the Ottomans?ottoman empire,as u also said,was multiethnic and turks were the dominant ethnic group.the same happens with the byzantine empire:greeks were the dominant ethnic group.the ancient egyptians were not arabs,so the arabs can claim nothing.and why u say that the arabs can claim the Chaliphates?their territory incuded tens of ethnic groups.noone so far has disputed the french character of the napoleonic empire,and noone has claimed that the modern chinese are not the inheritors of ancient china(although they now consist of many ethnic groups).--Hectorian 18:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said Turks can claim to be the inheritors of Ottoman Empire and they are widely believed to be so as you said. But also some Turks suggest Turkish roots go back to the Huns, now this is not widely believed, and in the same category with yours so is the rest of what you wrote about Iranians, French etc. As I said widely is a serious word and requires great amount of consensus on the subject. Claiming to be an ancient civilization's inheritor is also a serious claim; see Mussolini.

We agreed with Latinus on the last version by him/her. Pmanderson's edit should be reverted to that.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For your information: Septentrionalis is the signature for User:Pmanderson, as you can see with a mouseover. --Macrakis 18:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i know who he is,thanks Macrakis.

Adkagansu,if the turks are widely considered,as u said,can u provide for them the proof u ask for the greeks?or maybe same proof for what the arabs or the rest are considered?if such a thing is not possible,the same 'correction' will be added in every past empire and civilization.--Hectorian 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My topic for this discussion was supposed to be sarcastic not literal. Can you prove Nazis are widely hated? Can you prove God is widely believed? We can find number of Muslims, Christians etc. but how do we find out if they are really believers? Anyway to cut it short, as I said if modern Greeks were widely believed to be inheritors of ancient Greek then we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am not discussing if Greeks are inheritors or not, I am discussing the word widely and why it can't be used.--Kagan the Barbarian 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

so,we can change 'considered' to 'are'.btw,if the ottoman empire was considered to be same as all the other empires,we wouldn't have had that discussion yesterday;-)--Hectorian 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hector this discussion is seconds away from getting out of control. As I said we are not discussing whether Turks are inheritors of Ottoman or Greeks are of ancient Greeks, what we are discussing is what the general belief concerning these subjects are. Can I suggest to you "It is general belief that Nazis were nice people"? This is what I am saying. Just understand, dude!!!!!!--Kagan the Barbarian 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

if that's the problem,we'll find a better word for that(i hope)--Hectorian 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My honest opinion is the first sentence is unnecessary, as long as you write the truth from a NPOV, you let the reader decide who modern Greeks are. Of course you mention every ethnic migration, invasion etc.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with u,although i believe that the whole paragraph has to be rewritten.it presents the modern Greeks to be a result of the romantic nationalism,which is not the case...--Hectorian 20:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried something: ...Modern Greeks could be considered.... Personally, I like this rewording because past tense in this case implies a question, without actually posing it. I also added wikification. Please comment. After all, I am not famous for my literature skills...

PS Hectorian's "romantic nationalism" comment is still on debate as far as I am concerned. NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me.i think it is the best solution that we can come up to on this moment.--Hectorian 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian has not only failed to assume good faith (above), he is failing to read the present text correctly. The nationalism of the Philikê Hetairia did, as it was intended to, change the minds of their contemporaries, and arouse in them a sense of the depth and integrity of the Greek tradition. That's all this says; it's just shorter. Septentrionalis 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

and what is your good faith Septentrionalis?i supported Nikosilver's change at the moment.i have not talked about 'romantic nationalism' and your claim for it,yet.be patient pls(and do not judge my reading skills,i be sure that i am good at it;-)...)Regards--Hectorian 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sept, what do you mean failed to assume good faith (above)? Is that about his support in my change? If you feel so, address to me, please. (or go ahead and just revert it).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean the following: i doubt if that was your intention. (see about hlfway up by now.) This has nothing to do with your change, which I am still considering (btw, the description you want is subjunctive, not past.) Septentrionalis 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the words 'greeks and philhellenes consider...' limit by far the people who see the greeks as inheritors, and moreover it seems that it is a belief of the minority and not of the majority.i am sure u know what Philehllenes mean.that's why i said i doubt about your intensions.--Hectorian 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll solve that with Hector. So, I guess you approve the could thing. Do you? :-) Had written that before the "still consider" addition of yours.

PS Thanks for the new word. As I said. I am not famous for my literature skills... NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hobsbawm (that someone mentioned above) states that Greeks were the first people in the Ottoman Empire to seek their independence as a unified nation (under the modern definition of the term). I don't see why would someone compromise with a POV. Miskin 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it Serbs?--Kagan the Barbarian 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal experience from Serbia in this, is that Serbs claim no such thing. Miskin will present details (I think). What do you think about the could thing?  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 21:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, my honest opinion is the whole sentence looks unnecessary. For the improvement of this article I advise reading the Italians article, I brielfy read and it looks very informative and NPOV. A part of Greek history is also Italian so I think it can be a good guide for further editing of this article.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a unquestionable cultural continuity, which should not be denied; the claim to inheritance, while largely eighteenth-century in its present form, is quite real. Both of them should be acknowledged in the article; the content of the sentence should therefore be addressed somewhere. Septentrionalis 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but can't think of anything right now except for my pillow. I am sure you'll find a solution. Night.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbia didn't acquire a full independence, it continued for some time to be accounted as a self-governed province of the Ottoman Empire. Plus the Serbian uprising took advantage of the opportunity given by the Russo-Turkish conflicts, it did not emerge as a nation's struggle for independence. Philike Hetairia succeeded the liberation of the "motherland" through an organised destabilisation of the Ottoman Empire. Miskin 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing reverts

Pmanderson, in case u did not notice, u have removed the reference about the continuity from the ancient to the byzantines.is there any change that this happened 'accidentally'?--Hectorian 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The (demonstrably false) claim that Romaioi was devised in the third century AD.? Septentrionalis 19:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i mean that u totally erased the phrase The term was created in order to establish a dualistic connotation that represented the Greeks' Roman citizenship and their Hellenic ancestry. The word Romaioi came to represent the Greek inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire and replaced it with and the Greeks long continued call themselves Romans .who anyway tells u that the greeks of that time did not consider themselves descendants of the ancients?--Hectorian 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That phrase is quite simply false, as expressed; the Greeks of Caracalla's time did not create Romaios, it is the standard Greek word for Roman, as in Plutarch. See LSJ. If you meant something else, do recast. Septentrionalis 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the meaning of the word in the lexicon, but about the meaning that the greeks gave to this word during the byzantine period(and this is what u deleted and the reason that i object).they connected the name 'Romaios' with the christian religion, roman citizenship (as continuation of the Roman Empire) and ancient greek ancestry.and for this reasons i reverted the article and reworded the sentence.--Hectorian 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable; in fact, self-contradictory. If the Byzantines in general "valued the classical tradition" there would have arisen no distinction between Romaic and Hellenic. Septentrionalis 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between Romaic and Hellenic was a religious one, and u have mentioned it.--Hectorian 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to mention the Muslim graecophones of Pontus, who were not moved by the Treaty of Lausanne, but who still call their private language Romaic? Septentrionalis 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes,and their language is just Pontic Greek!so,what's your point in that?they name their language Romaic, but u cannot claim that it is not Greek.--Hectorian 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Hectorian, my only axe to grind here is pedantic accuracy. The only question about them is if they are notable enough to squeeze into the paragraph on "Romaic". Septentrionalis 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, could you please find some reputable modern sources (or some unambiguous primary sources -- but there is always the problem of interpretation) which support your interpretation? I think Septentrionalis is being very careful about his use of language.... --Macrakis 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of contemporary sources of that time, and these writers have already been mentioned in this page.but 'strangely' they are not mentioned in the recent edits.

And this version 'does not do' either.just a spot from it: When the Eastern Empire became predominately Greek-speaking.history says that the eastern part of the Roman empire had been predominantly greek-speaking since the times of the Diadoxoi and the evolvement of Hellenistic Koine.and it was cause of that that Heraclius made Greek official language.does anyone has a source (modern of of that time) saying that these people predominandly spoke another language when the Roman empire split?--Hectorian 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It is only natural that those people did not dissappear in thin air. I think that the opposite requires a source (i.e. they spoke some other language during the split).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

btw,this does not seem to be an Anna Russell moment.does it?--Hectorian 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This depends on the force given to predominant. I will add that the existence of this discussion proves that "predominantly" was the wrong choice, since it has been misunderstood. Septentrionalis 22:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Are u playing with the words?predominant means predominant.do not blame the others who 'supposendly' misunderstood.just say it was false and withdraw the word.--Hectorian 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not playing with it. I intended it as much stronger than you heard it; that was an error, but not a falsity. Septentrionalis 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

'Became predominantly Greek-speaking' is poor wording. I think what is intended here (but I am having trouble saying this in a concise, elegant way) is that the eastern part of the Roman empire was Greek-speaking, so when it became a separate entity, the Greek-speakers were predominant in that part. Yuck. Can we phrase that better?

And the Eastern Empire lost Syria and Egypt, which had been less Graecophone than (most of) Anatolia or Greece itself. Septentrionalis 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Greek was the primary language in Egypt and Syria at that time.about greece,was there any other language spoken rather than greek(and latin as,maybe, an administrative one)?--Hectorian 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for this? You omit Coptic, Syriac, and Aramaic. Septentrionalis 22:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking source for this.i know what primary means,that's why i used this word:)--Hectorian 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you are saying something that is at least debatable, and quite possibly false. My understanding is that Coptic was the primary language of most of Egypt; Greek was a language of administration and culture; that's why Coptic survived there. So for Syria. What is your source? Septentrionalis 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the sources, you seemed to be saying earlier that the term 'Romaios' implied four things: political inheritance from the Roman Empire; Christianity; use of the Greek language; and cultural inheritance from the ancient Greeks. The first three seem well-documented (though Septentrionalis's counter-example for religion is good to think about...). But if the third was so obvious, why did Gennadios burn Plethon's writings as heretical? --Macrakis 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i do not know english,i do not know...i think i have given more obvious reasons for all of these things.Gennadios burnt the works of Plethon Gemistos, cause he was a Neo-platonic.he did this motivated by religion not by ethnic conciousness.u named 4 implied things, why not 5?why the byzantines cannot be descendants (predominantly) of the ancient greeks?i have spotted an obvious false statement and u say 'just a phrase problem',not serious...Well,it is serious for the accuracy and NPOV of the article!and so are all the other things, that are not sourced and do not respect history.btw,i want a comment on the Anna Russell momment(not by u,Macrakis,although i cannot,of course,stop u if u want to make one:) --Hectorian 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I was agreeing that the 'became predominantly' phrase needed rewording because it is currently unclear. Though there was certainly some Greek spoken in Syria, but, as the Encyclopedia of Islam says (s.v. Damascus):

Semitic by language and culture, Monophysite and hostile to the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church, the people of Dimashq [Damascus] received the [Muslim] conquerors with unreserved pleasure, for they felt nearer to them by race, language and religion than to the Byzantines, and, regarding Islam as no more than another dissident Christian sect, they hoped to find themselves more free under them.

At Dimashq more than elsewhere circumstances seemed as if they ought to have favoured Arab assimilation to Greek culture but in fact Hellenization had not touched more than a minute fraction of the population who for the most part spoke Aramaic.

As for Plethon and Gennadios, I am confused. Gennadios burns Plethon's work based on ancient Greek authors for heresy, but apparently he still considers himself a cultural heir of pagan ancient Greece? That sounds fairly heretical. But I guess that theologians are good at resolving such seeming contradictions. --Macrakis 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not debating whether the Aramaic language was spoken in syria or not.for sure it was spoken.but the Enc.of Islam that u claim also says,in a second level, that byzantines were greeks(e.g. ...hostile to the byzantines...nearer to the arabs by race,language and religion than to the byzantines...greek-speaking orthodox church...Hellenization did not proceed...:so,who were the byzantines?).as for Gennadios and the links between pagan greece-christian byzantium, better ask why the monks preserved, kept and spread the works of a pagan culture?maybe cause they considered it the culture of their ancestors.oh yes,that's why! --Hectorian 23:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"If the Byzantines in general "valued the classical tradition" there would have arisen no distinction between Romaic and Hellenic."
If they Byzantines did not regard themselves Greek, they would have not made a distinction between "Romans" and "Latins", nor they would use the word "Graecus" to refer to themselves while talking to foreigners. I'm not surprised about pmanderson's POV in Byzantium, I can see where it comes from. He obviously doesn't know that most of Byzantine scholar wrote in Attic Greek, nor that Constantinople's gates were decorated by the labors of Hercules, nor that "pagan" statues of the Olympian gods were found all over within the city. Miskin 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Miskin, please stop guessing about me; you've been flat wrong several times in the last few minutes, and if I keep laughing like this, they'll throw me off this computer. Within Wikipedia, you are grazing WP:NPA. Septentrionalis 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So, do you need a source on the above? Miskin 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Miskin regards the version he reverted as POV and false.[30] Therefore there exists both a PoV and acuuracy dispute, until he reverts himself. I will so tag, Let him state what he disputes. Septentrionalis 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because Gennadios (an extremist for his time) viewed Plethon as a "heretic", that doesn't mean that we're justified to use the term. It was common policy by the Byzantine Greeks in the 14th and 15th centuries to revive the term "Hellenes" and focus on their Hellenic past (in order to gain sympathy from the west). So that wasn't exactly a thing invented by Plethon as the article implied. By the way, Gennadios would prefer to welcome Ottoman rule rather than unite the two churches. How would you interpret that pmanderson? That he wanted to be Ottoman? Pmanderson, be aware that I'm never going to let your ridiculous POV enter the article. You are not Greek, have no relation to the Greeks and yet you keep editing the article out of clearly biased personal agenda. I said it before and I'll say it again, nothing below ArbCom can stop me from reverting you. Miskin 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop attacking Pmanderson's supposed "biased personal agenda", and threatening edit wars, and stick to substantive arguments? --Macrakis 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And before I remove the tags, would you be kind enough to paste for me in here the exact phrases that you're disputing? Miskin 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary you said "I dispute both Miskin's "facts" and his bias", so by all means, tell me where the bias is. I've already done my part. Miskin 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, you seem to think it is a bad thing that Pmanderson edits the Greeks article and is not Greek. On the contrary, it is a good thing. The Greeks article does not "belong" to the Greeks. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect a disinterested position (even if many individual editors have a preexisting POV). You obviously have a strong POV, which is not a bad thing as long as you realize it and work cooperatively with other editors. Even better than you and Pmanderson and Hectorian and others injecting their considered opinions would be good citations from disinterested, respected, modern scholars. --Macrakis 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If I thought what you just said, then I wouldn't be using foreign sources for my edits would I? Pmanderson's obesession and persistence should make you also wonder about his neutrality. Miskin 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who knows what sources you are using? I don't see a single footnote or bibliographic reference for any edits in this article -- yours or anyone else's. --Macrakis 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis,why u always use the word 'modern' when talking about scholars and historians?don't u believe that the contemporary scholars and historians of a specific historic period may be more capable in giving actual info? --Hectorian 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above, dated "22:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)". As I say there, contemporary sources (primary sources) are of course indispensible raw material for historical study. However, they require expertise and judgement to interpret and contextualize. --Macrakis 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

oh,yes.i remember that edit.but also have in mind that the contemporary historians were eyewitnesses in many cases (which along with αυτοψία-sorry,i can't translate it-are the characteristics that make a good historian, as Herodotus had said). --Hectorian 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Herodotus has been called both "father of history" and (even in antiquity) "father of lies". Eyewitnesses are great, but their testimony must be weighed against other evidence, both in the courts of law and in history. I really don't understand your point here. You seem to be saying that the whole field of history is useless, that all we need is contemporary sources, and we're done. --Macrakis 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No,it is not what i am saying.i am saying to include both contemporary and modern sources.and i asked u why u always say 'modern' and never say anything good about the contemporary.they have also their 'weight' and in many cases they are more reliable than a modern one.--Hectorian 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reliability of contemporary sources can only be established through other textual, philological, archaeological, and other evidence. Their interpretation also depends on these other fields. --Macrakis 13:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the credibility of the sources. I like modern sources who cite contemporaries. Miskin 14:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've been through the article again and again and despite its length I'm beginning to realise that it says "three times nothing" (as the French say). It should be subject to a large re-write, in which inevitably I'll have to participate. I'm not really in the mood but the presence of POV-pushers such as pmanderson are the only reason I've been editing here in the first place. The article stupidly focuses on what (in inevitably POV terms) has made historically a Greek, while it says very few things about the Greeks themselves. This poor result is apparently due to the participation of biased editors such as pmanderson, whose obsessions about racial purity (or whatever) can be clearly reflected on a summary of the article. Miskin 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the racial purity thing, if you read the edit history, you will see that another editor some time ago was pushing the notion of same-blood (omaimon) and that Pmanderson and I were resisting that. --Macrakis 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you resisted it for different reasons. You didn't think it was relevant to an ethnic article by the modern definition of the word, and pmanderson simply refuses to accept or imply that modern Greeks are the ancestors of the ancients. He won't even accept the continuity of Greek history. That in my book is pure bias, and you're simply too naive to notice it. Miskin 15:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver

The problem is more with ancient Greece than it is with Byzantine. Modern Greek connection with ancient Greece is more a romantic tie than a cultural or a political one. Anyway, as I said I won't revert again. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep your POV for your friends and relatives Kagan. As long as you don't have a credible source your comments are a waste of precious wikipedia space. The text in the article is sourced, and has the source right next to it. Sorry... Miskin 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Modern Greeks are "inheritors" of ancient Greeks. They inherited the language, the culture, the land, the education etc. If there is one country in the modern world that has so many references to the classical values in its education system, that country is definitely Greece. The article doesn't say "offsprings" (not that anybody can dispute or approve this)!! In any case I like it that we two have managed to keep the tones down!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, thanks to Greeks like you, My Big Fat Greek Wedding as a comedy had great box office success in the States. The rest of the world finds your harmless attitude amusing, I guess I should too. Check out Italian people article to know what a NPOV article should look like. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me, I'll be waiting for the sequel to MBFGW. Cheers!--Kagan the Barbarian 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is funny and ironic that you mention Italian people as an example of NPOV. Check out its edit history and discussion page to find out who has made it NPOV. PS, I'm waiting for that sequel too. Miskin 12:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your version. It was NPOV last week before you touched it.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Strangely Italian editors don't share your thoughts. Strangely... Miskin 12:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't provoke me to go look for sources on the numbers or physical characteristics of the Turkic people who entered Anatolia in the 11th century, and compare it to the modern Turks (supposedly the ancestors of older ones). Would you like me to edit the Turkish people article and point out that "Turk" meant muslim in the Ottoman Empire, or that the modern Turks are mainly the ancestors of people who were enslaved by the Ottomans and converted to Islam? Because unless you see a clear physical resemblance betwee the real chinese-looking Turks of central Asia and the Turks of Anatolia, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to draw these conclusions. Don't start what you can't finish, making an NPOV-cleanup on the Turkish articles is the easiest task I can imagine. Miskin 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Turkey, like so many other vast former imperialist powers such as the Romans and the British, in part reflects its imperial past", that almost made me smile; you got some nerve speaking about POV on other articles. Miskin 13:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the Greeks article, I didn't feel any chauvinism in the Italian people page. This doesn't mean there can't be any factual inaccuracies. The question is why can't you spot the chauvinist sentences in this article. Makes you wonder if it has something to do with you being Greek, eh?

Of course Turkey reflects its imperial past, its ethnic and cultural diversity does, the architecture of Istanbul does, even Turkey's whole existence and borders is the result of an imperial background. How does your modern Greece reflect the ancient Greece? Your great understanding of philosophy and logic? Or is it your respect for opposite opinions? Ahaha, good one. You are nothing but... On second thought I won't finish that sentence.

What's up with your tone by the way? I get the feeling you are constantly trying to threaten me. I don't find mixed ethnicity ashaming, dear Himmler, on the contrary I consider it a power if used smartly. 50 years from now, who will define a Brit by his/her looks? What about the French? As for our ethnic origins, of course dear Turkolog Miskin doesn't even know there are branches of Turkic people and that Turks of Asia Minor come from the western branch, Oghuz Turks, who had more Persian appearence than a Chinese one like Tatars. Still Turkey has about 5 million ethnic Tatar citizens as well, they represent the eastern Turkic branch. As for the Balkan Turks, well we can't know how they converted to Islam, it may be by their own will, through marriage or forced. Still, first 2 are more effective than the latter for sure.

Your life apperantly evolves around Wikipedia and too much Wiki editing is known to cause severe brain damage. I advise taking a break. Cheers.--Kagan the Barbarian 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I never denied that Turkey is one of the inheritors (the principal one maybe) of the Ottoman Empire, yet the phrase "Turkey was an imperial power like Roman and Britain" is a POV which makes a completely different meaning. If you find a credible source for it, things will be different, but something tells me that no serious source on the planet can make such childish claims. Miskin 15:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What you accuse as chauvinism is coming from sources, hence any further comments you make serve only in ridiculing yourself. If you have a specific observation to make then you need to make a specific comment. Remarks of the type "this article is biased because you're greek" or "shut up, I don't believe that's said in that source" are nothing but personal attacks. I would advise you to read WP:RULES before questioning the content of any article whatsoever. Your claims on Turkey and its imperial past is a POV, please try to understand that you need to provide credible sources for your edits. Your personal opinion and analysis might be 100% correct, but it's simply not enough in order to make edits in wikipedia. Original research is not allowed - read the rules. My only threat regards your constant personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. I've tried to be nice with you in order to make you understand that your attitude is inappropriate, but it doesn't work. If you continue to behave the way you do, I'll gather the diffs of your personal attacks you commit on daily basis and send them to an administrator. If you can't learn the nice way, you might as well learn by force. Miskin 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC) -_ _____KAGAN________________________________________________________________________________ Please provide some decent proof on your views. I agree with Miskin Heraklios 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some changes needed for the related peoples section

I think we need to change this section as there is no Indo-European people or ethnic group today. We'd be better off adding Pontic Greeks, and possibly Italians and Albanians as related peoples. Tombseye 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I never understood the criteria of the "related ethnic groups" field. Nevertheless I removed Pontian Greeks simply because they're part of the Greek ethnic group as much as Helladic and Anatolian Greeks. Miskin 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems vague, but generally some groups have clear links to other peoples, usually those living next door. Indo-European though is just not even a viable 'group' really so much as an old super language group. I agree on the Pontian Greeks, I just found it odd that their dialect is not even mentioned in the languages spoken section. Tombseye 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and a question, how is Pontic a dialect if Greek speakers can't understand Pontic speakers? Surely that constitutes a language since apparently Valencian and Catalan, for example, are mutually intelligible yet often considered separate languages. Tombseye 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek is different from standard Greek, but the intillegibility depends highly on the speakers. If a Greek has some knowledge in depth of ancient greek, it is easier for him/her to understand a pontic speaker. if a Pontic speaks slowly, we can also understand almost everything. and, lastly, every greek that will read something written in pontic, will understand everything! I am not sure if i was clear enough...Yet, if Pontic Greek is a separate language, so does cypriot greek, Griko, Tsakonian, even Cretan and the dialect of the Ionian islands. (me, as coming from Thessaly, i have many times been asked from Macedonian Greeks, what a particular word or phrase means). so the 'borders' between Greek (both standard and dialectal) and the other languages are clear enough, and they do not support any further split of 'Hellenic languages'. --Hectorian 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greeks is a subgoup of the Greeks ethnic group. Hence, they should not be listed here. But i agree with Tombseye, that the Italians and Albanians seem to be the closer related to the Greeks. If we are about to have a sentence about 'related peoples' in the Greeks article, we cannot follow the criteria of the other similar articles. in Danes, for example, we can simply write 'Germanic peoples', but the Greeks form a branch of the IE people on their own. I think we could write 'Graeco-Latin' or 'Graeco-Celto-Latin' or 'Albanians' and 'Armenians', but i am not sure if there is clear to the ethnographers that these groups are related to the Greeks more than the other Indoeuropeans (in the sence of Balto-Slavic or Slavo-Germanic peoples-an IE branch, prior to the split between them). --Hectorian 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well officially (not by Greek claims) the Greek language includes all spoken forms of Greek as its dialects, which are Demotic, Pontic, Cappadocian, Tsakonian and even Graecanic. By personal experience Pontic is not so intelligible when spoken but it's intelligible when read. The distinction between language and dialect is generally thin, but we could add all of the above and change the field to "dialects". Miskin 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget that when reading pontic-greek, u can use your etymology knowledge easier. come on! we can understand what a word means in english, if it is a greek loan-word, without even heard of it before:) --Hectorian 20:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said that when read it's intelligible. Miskin

Ethnologue is honestly not a credible source as it has many mistakes (which is normal as it treats all living languages of the world). Miskin 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Arvanitika, Dopia (Macedonian), Turkish, Romany, Aromanian and Bulgarian ought to be mentioned. Telex 20:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it should be mentioned. not only for the Arvanitika and Aromanian (although these languages are really dying) but also for turkish (with the note that we refer to the Greek-muslims. we should not forget that after 1923 many greek refugees from Asia Minor, spoke only turkish (after 1 millenium of turkish rule) --Hectorian 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-Greek speaking minorities such as Bulgarians and Turks are not included in the numerical figures provided in the article. Apparently ethnic articles (with the exception of French people) make a distinction between ethnic X and national X. Miskin 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this claim about some Anatolian Greeks being monolingual in Turkish is true. I've first heard of this in wikipedia, never seen it in a source. Miskin 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I've known lots of Greeks and the subject of Pontic has never come up so I wasn't sure. As for related groups, as Hectorian correctly states, there is no larger Greek group like Germanic peoples etc. so I thought putting in Balkan peoples made sense given the close proximity of all Balkan peoples and I added Italians due to the historic interaction and colonization by both. I figured Albanians and Turks would be considered just in terms of Balkan peoples in close proximity. Also, given the nature of wikipedia I decided not to list people by name just because there will no doubt be people who will disagree for their own personal reasons that Albanians, Turks, Bulgarians, and others are not related to Greeks, whereas Italians seems to not have any political baggage. Just to avoid edit wars. Tombseye 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

U are right. there would be revert wars. I would not mind to add the Alanians or the Bulgarians in the section as related. i would not even mind mentioning the Turkish people as well (but by giving also the reason of the relation-maybe u got what i mean). as for the Italians, believe, noone would ever dare to mind about it, since we both say for each other 'una fatsa, una ratsa'='same face, same race':) --Hectorian 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's a line from one of my favorite movies, Mediterraneo! I think the infobox section is okay then. Cheers. Tombseye 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried making a version of the infobox template that treats the "related groups" section as optional. Shall we just leave it out? Please see Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group. At the moment it's just a draft in my userspace, might need some testing. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and modified the template so that the "related groups" row is now optional. I personally don't care very much what's in that row while it's there. But next time somebody feels the need to editwar about it, I'm gonna scrap it altogether. :-) Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the recent round of reverts aim to illustrate that actually Greeks aren't really related with anyone? If yes, then I am sure Lukas' template modification reflects it perfectly (I am not sure if that was his intention, though)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It either means you are an "anadelphos laos" and related with nobody, or you are related with everybody, Fallmerarified mixtures that you are ;-) Take your pick. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fallmerayer questioned the Philhellenes' naiveness concerning the racial purity of Peloponnesian Greeks, who constituted at the time less than an 1/8 of the overall Greek population. This did have a political basis during his time because Peloponnese was basically the Greek state itself. After all the massive population exchanges and migrations of the 20th century, Greece was completely resettled by Greeks who were conveniently not part of Fallmerayer's theory. Naiveness today falls on the people who recall Fallmerayer's theories without acknowledging the political changes that have taken place since the 19th century (and assume of course that Fallmerayer was 100% correct). Miskin 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but please don't make it sound like you guys disagree, coz I am sure Lukas' comment was ironic towards Fallmerayer's nationalistic arguements... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I know but others have brought it up as a serious argument in support of their edits. In fact not too long ago there was an entire section devoted to Fallmerayer, but I personally "took care" of it. Miskin 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious argument, yeah, like using smoke signals to describe how telephones work... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Careful, "anadelphos" actually means both, depending if the definition of "having no brother" is meant internally or externally... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what it means to be related with another people. In what respect is the relation judged? Linguistic? Cultrual? Racial? I can't participate in the conversation without knowing exactly what we're talking about. Miskin 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my point, I quite agree, that's why I'm for leaving it all out. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria varies, but when I add related peoples I look for common language/culture/history and bloodlines or something to varying degrees. For example we know that most Jamaicans aren't related to the English, but some are (especially the small mulatto population), whereas the Greeks are related to their neighbors simply due to interaction in the Balkans. I think the section can be useful, but is unpopular with people who don't want to be linked to neighbors they don't like personally and also it can be dubious as to who is and isn't related. If used properly it is useful and informative though as I have rendered it in various peoples articles (such as Pashtun people and Azerbaijani people). Mainly though, Indo-European is simply not a viable group, but a hypothetical ancient super language family group that is now extinct so that was what I wanted to replace. Given the historic interaction between greeks and italians I thought that was natural and the Balkan peoples is a given since Greece has both invaded and been invaded from the north. Tombseye 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And as I pointed out above, half of the currently Greek national population comes from Asia Minor and Constantinople. Hence you need to add a great deal of ethnic groups which might have had contacts with. Miskin 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore it's misleading to follow common practice by evaluating Greeks exclusively in terms of the history of the Greek peninsula. Miskin 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That should be covered by Balkan peoples as it generally includes Asia Minor. I'm not disputing any of what you've said, but the Greeks aren't as widely dispersed as say the Armenians or Jews etc. and genetic variability between Asia Minor and Greece isn't that substantial. Tombseye 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why should genetic variability come into play when defining an ethnic group in the 21st century. As I pointed out in the article, Greek-speakers have dominated the same region around the Agean sea since the ancient colonisation of Asia Minor. I don't know in what degree the invasion of a foreign tribe can be regarded as a mix between the peoples. If an ethnie undergoes significant mix with a foreign people, it will be evident in cultural, linguistic and even physical aspects. That's not the case with the Greeks who are generally homogenuous in those aspects (including the genetic/physical one). What I'm trying to say is that it is pointless to search for a "relation" in the basis historical interaction with foreign peoples. Who are the original Greeks anyway? The tribes of ancient Greece were never the pure ancestors of the Indo-European Greek-speakers to begin with. The had mixed with the pre-hellenic populations such as Carians, Pelasgians and Minoans in order to obtain their cultural and dialectal variation. I agree with Lucas that no-one would miss it if we left it out. But in case someone restores it, IMO the related ethnic groups field should have purely cultural criteria. The Italians for example, can be considered due to historical ties a related people. From the linguistic point of view, Old Armenian and Illyrian were said to be related to Greek. This could also add in the field the Armenians, and without raising an eyebrow, the Albanians. Apart from the language, the two latter have had historical ties to the Greeks via the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires, therefore they would be good reason to mention them. For the moment I can't think of something else. Miskin 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the unique case of the Greeks, I have no problem with leaving the related peoples out as, again, I largely agree with what you've said, such as the ancient Greeks not being entirely Indo-European (the new paradigm is that the Indo-European genetic contribution may have been more minor in comparison to native peoples who were conquered by them). I don't think it's pointless to point out related peoples however and actually the groups you've mentioned (if given citations) would be okay to include (however the Illyrians being extinct as a modern group would be pointless) and there is some dissension as to which Armenians are related and to what extent since the Indo-Iranian languages are also related to the Armeno-Greek-Illyrian branch. Like it or not, academics are increasingly using genetic studies in order to ascertain whether modern populations are related to ancient ones (for example National Geo's stuff on the ancient Phoenicians) and to determine to what extent populations are related to each other to determine the extent of migrations and invasions. It's not an exact science, but it's getting better all the time. Regardless, I have no problem with nothing being said about related groups regarding the Greeks. Cheers. Tombseye 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll say something that may sound both nationalistic or anti-nationalistic, depending on how one perceives it, but as an extreme case it serves in pointing something out: It is largely discussed that all peoples of the world are "children of Greece". That the Ancient-Byzantine Greek values largely characterize our modern society in politics, in science, in arts, in religion, in culture, in ethics, in vocabulary etc. That great ancient rulers, such as Alexander the Great, are the heritage to all people of the entire world, and more... So to quote Tombseye, when "I look for common language/culture/history and bloodlines", since old [sic] Greeks influenced (or were influenced by) all major linguistic/cultural/historical/(bloodline?) fields, to a great extent (the greatest?) than any other, wouldn't it be ok to say that under related ethinic groups, we should write all peoples of the world? It's just a thought, but then again, omitting it is ok too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should not just omitte 'Related peoples'. i believe that history provides us with all the necessary stuff to deal with this 'problem' concerning the 'unique' case of the Greeks, as Tombseye said:). i will not say anything about the genetic studies, cause i am not that familiar with them, and cause the genetic studies are contranticting each other to a great extend. so, if we want to stay close to what is widely accepted by the scientific community, we have to list definately the Italian peoples. if we also want to include historic references, we should include the Armenians (cause Herodotus said that they are descendants of the Phrygians-and as Plato had also said, the Phrygian language was very close to Greek). we could also include the Albanians (since the majority of scientists regards them as descendants of the Illyrians, who were in turn relatives of the Pelasgians-?-, who, on the other had were the ansestors of the Greeks-according to Herodotus). that's why from the early beginning of this discussion, i had proposed to include these 3 peoples (now i am just saying the reasons for this proposal). i know that in this way other questions my arise, concerning whether the modern Greeks descent from the ancient, etc. I think that it would be wise to stick on what we have for sure, cause if we are about to speculate (e.g. the modern greeks are related to the slavs of the balkans, or that they originate from the slavic invasions, or that they mixed so much that they ended up to be non-'originally' Greeks), we are just opening a can of worms (someone could also say that the Minoans were not pre-Greeks, but Proto-Greeks...Linear A has not yet been translated-do not forget that prior to the translation of Linear B, the Mykeneans were considered pre-Greeks as well...). On this way of speculations, someone would link the modern Greeks (as descendants of the Minoans with the Basques, based on -not necessarily false- but definately not widely accepted facts. --Hectorian 19:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everything you say actually confirms why we should omit it: the range of possibilities and the range of possible competing criteria is so great that any choice we could possibly make would in itself constitute "original research". It's a can of worms whichever way one looks at it - and why should we be under any obligation to open it anyway? Just because somebody in Wikipedia some time ago decided that it would be nice to have such a row in the template? Any "relations" Greeks may have with any other people can be adequately treated in the body text; the infobox should only be for undisputed hard facts. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Well, indeed there are various problems involved in assessing who is related to whom. Which is why I simply put Balkan peoples which is general and not all inaccurate since the Greeks are from the region and interaction was a constant. And we know that there was massive immigration of Greeks from Asia Minor and that, many Turks were converted Greeks (see [[Khair ad Din] for example). In addition, the Italians are probably the most closely credible related group given the massive Greek colonization of southern Italy and Sicily that is pretty much undisputed. All of that aside, since the Greeks speak their own branch of an Indo-European language, linking them to others is harder in terms of hard facts. I took a safe route and listed only the Italians and Balkan peoples so as to avoid the ambiguities as I think those two are pretty reliable in terms of related peoples whereas the Armenians, though a possible related group, are tougher to link without dissension. Tombseye 04:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for kicking up more dust on this topic, but I think it's weird that the Greek people ethnic group page is the only one that does not conform to Wikipedia standards regarding the 'ethnic group' box, considering that the article is an ETHNIC GROUP article that should meet the Wikipedia ETHNIC GROUP article template. I understand what Miskin, Lukas and others who oppose the box; it is sometimes difficult and controversial to claim 'relatedness' between to people. Population Geneticists and many ethnographers such as the highly respected Cavilla-sforza can paint a good picture of human migration theories and are changing how we look at history, for instance the paleolithic continuity theory and other invasion theories. I know genetics is a very new science and is by no means 100 percent accurate, but they are as close to 'hard facts' as you can get (assuming their was a good, large, unbias sample of individuals, etc). With historical evidence from people like Herodotus, Julius Caesar and other respected historians in combination with genetic evidence should be enough to put this thing together and would be more accurate.

Some mentioned what should be put into the box, 'culturally, linguistically, or racially related.' The answer to that is pretty simple, racially or ethnically similar people. Yeah, yeah i know it's not all black and white, and it's a slippery slope (the cliche arguement of 'we all are descended from Africans, so why don't we put them down under related groups' comes to mind). Someone said earlier that 'we are all sons of Greece'...to what extent, we are all humans and are all related, but I think anyone would agree that Ethipians don't claim to identify themselves with Greeks in the same way, and to a much lesser degree than the the Macedonians or Cypriots. But if anything the groups such as Italians should be mentioned and other groups with a undisputed significant cultural and ethnic connection. I for one love history and can't stand the people who mix up the Greeks and Roman(Italian) figures in history..common mistake because many would say that they are in many ways linked, culturally and ethnically through human migrations what the Romans called "Magna Graecia" or Southern Italy and Sicily that was colonised by the Greeks. Greeks are surely related to someone out there enough to be able to consider them 'related', even the basques (who have "(none)" on the box there have a related groups section; it might take some slicing and dicing but eventually we would reach a consensus on the section if it were to be revived.

Well, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue.. the anon who originally made the contribution had the good idea of adding the section and I would see how it could help bring a full understanding of who the Greeks are as a people and their legacy in the modern world. -Anonymous

Thanks for your comments. Just for the record: This wasn't a matter of the anon adding the section recently. The section was always there until a few days ago, if for no other reason than that there was no choice. The template treated it as obligatory. I changed the template so as to make it optional, and removed the entry, after this had been discussed here. As for content, I stand by what I said: some disccusants have automatically assumed relatedness should refer to linguistic relations; you seem to be just as automatically assuming it should be genetic, etc etc. We have no way of prioritizing between these without committing OR. - If there's further disagreement, perhaps it would be time for a straw poll at this stage? Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"but I think anyone would agree that Ethipians don't claim to identify themselves with Greeks in the same way, and to a much lesser degree than the the Macedonians or Cypriots."
I think there's a number of ethnosociohistorical issues you need to sort out before filling that box yourself. Miskin 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Descent of Hellen

I removed Oedipus, cause he cannot be listed in that section. he was not descendant of Kadmus. according to the myth, Kadmus killed the dragon that was protecting Thebes's terrain and from the teeth of the dragon the Thebans were born...so... I will check the other myths as well, although i am unsure if such a paragraph is really necessary. --Hectorian 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Related ethnic groups" once again

Arrrrghh! People are still changing that "related groups" box on a daily basis. For your entertainment, here's a list of all the proposals that have been made during the last months. Can someone please calculate how many possible permutations of these candidates we haven't tried out yet, and then instigate a little edit war so that they all get their fair chance? ;-)

(updated subsequently)

Editor	Date	Text	Other IE	Other Balk.	Other Eur.	Ital.	Alb.	Mac.	Turk.	Cypr.	Pont.	Nurist.
172.190.34.105	17 May	Other Europeans
Telex	15 May	—
65.92.94.115	15 May	Italians, Turks, other Indo-European peoples
Moosh88	14 May	—
Epf	13 May	Italians, other Indo-European peoples
LukasPietsch	10 May	—
172.190.34.105	10 May	Macedonians, Italians, Albanians, Nuristani
Miskin	10 May	—
Chaldean	10 May	Macedonians, Italians, Albanians, Nuristani
207.200.116.73	10 May	Cypriots, Macedonians, Italians, Albanians
LukasPietsch	8 May	—
87.203.232.228	8 May	other Indo-European peoples
Khoikhoi	7 May	Italians, other Balkan peoples
87.203.232.228	8 May	other Indo-European peoples
Khoikhoi	7 May	Italians, other Balkan peoples
87.203.232.228	8 May	other Indo-European peoples
Miskin	4 May	Italians, other Balkan peoples
87.203.239.103	4 May	other Indo-European people
Miskin	30 April	Italians, other Balkan peoples
Tombseye	30 April	Pontian Greeks, Italians, other Balkan peoples
Ronline	7 January	Other Indo-European ethnic groups
—	before Jan 2006	Indo-European

Seriously. Can we please please agree to just do away with the silly little thing? This will just never lead to a sensible stable solution. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I will revert anyone who tries to add it back in order to help you out Luke.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As we now seem to have a consensus at least between Niko, Telex, Miskin, Moosh88 and myself, Tombseye not objecting, and Hectorian and Epf the only named contributors that have recently expressed other opinions, I think I'll add a hidden comment into the text for future editors to please not change it without seeking consensus on talk first. Everybody okay with that? Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Naaaah, leave it like that... Everybody here is in need of a justified revert once in a while... :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you get enough reverts in other articles Jennifer Eva Naomi ...? ;-)) Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was sure people were watching my catchy edit-summary comments in my user and talk pages!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, I guess, in the case of the Greeks, it is kind of pointless to have a related people section if everyone is going to add things arbitrarily. I would have been okay with Balkan peoples only though and left the rest, but not having it is okay by me! Tombseye 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, i have expressed my POV, with facts (in some cases), but i am not going to make any change or revert of the current version (about the related peoples). it is better to leave it this way, instead of editwaring... Although i guess that the Republic of Milla Jovovich is right when talking about justified reverts:) --Hectorian 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Call me after my self-identifying term. And stop that mindless nationalistic "Former User Curiously Koo-kooed And Self-identified Supermodel" appellation!! (Don't even think of writing down the initials on this, I didn't even have the courage to bold them...)!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how didn't anybody think of this before? It's the greates proposal ever. Congratulations to the anon!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, not that I would edit-war against it, but it really reduces the information value to trivial, doesn't it? Well, never mind... Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Greeks had sub-Saharan origins, making them more closely related to the Ethiopians and the Japanese (!), whereas the "Macedonians" are the pure descendents of the ancient Macedonians and are not related to the Greeks. This is (University of Skopje's interpretation of) the HLA genes research. --Telex 12:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still arguing on a decision which has no fixed criteria? This field can only attrack edits-wars and I'd remove it from all similar articles if it were up to me. Miskin 12:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, anyway, no-problem, no-objection, no edit-war whatsoever, not worth discussing, not important, too trivial, and by the way I thought it was good just to keep it non-blank (or at least not-vanished). :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we just keep it vague, I don't think anybody will disagree with "Indo-European peoples" or "Other European peoples" something along those lines...or otherwise someone who dozed in all their history classes and need to right a report on the Greeks will know that they aren't Turks. Someone might see that Greece was once apart of the Ottoman Empire and wrongly deduct that Greeks must ALL be Turks too. Although there probably was a genetic contribution to the gene pool, but that would complicate things in the box and cause disputes since some people don't think the Turks are cool, same thing with the alleged Ethiopian contribution to the gene pool according to that Macedonian study.Anyway, All im saying is...A VAGUE BOX WOULD BE BETTER THAN NO BOX. KEEP IT SIMPLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.138.69 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 May 2006

I disagree, a vague box is infinitely worse than no box. "Other Balkan peoples" is little more than just "Oh well, let's suppose they are somehow related to more or less everything around them", which is silly and trivial. "Other European peoples" would be plain wrong (because they are *not* more closely related to, say, Finns or Basques than to Palestinians). "Other Indo-European peoples" would be wrong (because they are hardly more closely related to Irish or Pashto than to Turks). And, I repeat: whatever we say here, it will *always* be Original Research. Not because there are no verifiable facts that we could base the statement on, but because the *selection and weighting* of these facts would be our arbitrary choice. There's nothing wrong with saying they are related to Armenians in terms of historical linguistics. There's nothing wrong with saying they are related to, say, Turks in terms of genetic admixture (if we could source that). There's nothing wrong with saying they are related to neighbouring Balkan peoples in terms of shared culture, history and language contact. But there's everything wrong with us arbitrarily deciding that one or other of these criteria is more relevant for a uniform overall measure of "relatedness" than the rest.

Why is everybody so damned obsessed with having this box anyway?? As if some higher power was forcing us to use it? Is it written in the Bible somewhere that in order to understand an ethnic group you need to stick a little box to it that says "related to"?? Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lukas is right also from a linguistic point of view (and language is one of the significant factors that determines ethnicity). What I mean is that the Greek language seems to have it's own branch under Indo-european which descends down to modern Greek, unlike e.g the Germanic or Latin or Slav branches that have been broken into many sub-branches (with almost respective ethnic groups) until even recently. Same goes (own branch) for Albanian (I think). So there seem to be quite many contradicting theories regarding the relatedness of Greeks. Let's keep the darn box out and violate the commandment "Thou shalt not describe an ethnic group without relatedness!" :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in again, Niko. Although, to be fair to the "Balkanists", one may note there is at least one sense in which Greek has a very real, close relationship to its neighbouring languages - not through a shared ancestor, but through later contact and structural convergence. See Balkan linguistic union. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing to the close relationship with the other balkan languages, Italian is the most closely related language to Greek. --Hectorian 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not even that straightforward. In terms of IE ancestry, Italic was, if anything, closer to Celtic than to anything else; while Greek was, if anything, closer to the ancestors of Armenian. And if we accept that Latin was nevertheless fairly close to Greek, Rumanian would arguably take precedence over Italian, because it has all the inherited ancestral relation Italian has, plus the later convergence qua Balkan union. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Language and religion

Should the alternative languages of the Greek identifying bilingual Greek populations (Aromanian, Arvanitika, Bulgarian, Turkish, Russian etc) be mentioned (if not in the infobox, somewhere else)? I've long thought that an article layout resembling the one at English people is needed, where linguistic and religious variation can be discussed in detail. --Telex 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Both are ok, if we also provide estimated numbers and notes (like "...used along with Greek..." and "...self-identify as Angelina Jolie [Jesus, this is getting serious] Greeks..."), not to create confusion that Greeks are some sort of Babelonians...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This belongs to the demography of Greece. Miskin 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeks in America

I noticed that someone has put down that there are 3 million Greeks in America based on a 2006 est by the US State Department. Unfortunately this is not correct as the 2000 American Census shows no more than 1.1 million Greeks in all states. See Euroamericans.net which breaks down the 2000 Census in all states where Greeks live. In March 25th 2002 at a Greek Day Independence ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington in the presence of Archbishop Demetrios Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America President Bush stated and quote "Our nation has been inspired by Greek ideals and enriched by Greek immigrants.Today about 1 million Americans claim Greek origin" Source Ekathimerini 27/3/2002. The 3 million Greeks in America is a Myth perpetrated by certain Greek individuals in the US who have a funding agenda from the Greek Government. The Census is far more reliable and accurate than estimates.

GSAL-Australia 12/Jun/06.

Picture of Heraclius instead of Constantine XI?

We know Heraclius is credited with the formal side of hellenization, he also emphasized a greek Nationalist struggle in persian wars. I think it is therefore more suitable to put him down as the 'formal' turning point in Roman History when Roman Empire became 'Hellenized' fully.

Also, maybe Nikos Kazantzakis instead of Venizelos? We need a representative of the Arts up there, he is Greece's greatest contemporary author.

Popuation figures

There is no evidence to support this claim since Greeks have an effectively stable population with births=deaths. The correct figure, in the absence of any known immigration of Greeks since 2001, is that given by the 2001 Census. Any increase in population is caused by immigrants, as was also the case 1991-2001. So kindly put the figure back to where it was before, at 10,3m Greeks living in Greece. ANYTHING ELSE IS BLATANT NATIONALISTIC PROPAGANDA

CIA WORLD FACTBOOk states :10,688,058 (July 2006 est.) This is more reliable than your 2001 statistic. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gr.html#People

BBC states Population: 11 million (UN, 2005) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1009249.stm#facts—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.182.94 (talk • contribs)

No need to shout. Jkelly 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the sun affected your brain? How can the potential addition of 240,000 extra Greeks be (in furious capital letters) 'blatant nationalistic propaganda'? Dear 'unsigned' please could you try your hand at something else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs)

So the fucking BBC and CIA tell you greeks how many Greeks there are in Greece? you people are pathetic... There are no more Greeks in Greece than there were in 2001. If you dont know what is happening, don't write things on Wikipedia because you arew a fake.

And my reply to Amonymous above is: if you havent' noticed the nationalist habit on wikipedia of inventing and exaggerating the number of Greeks/Romanians/Wallabies/Martians etc, then you have no business writing anything here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.252.215 (talk • contribs)

Would everyone please sign their comments. One can do so using ~~~~. Thanks. Jkelly 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You talk about my figures, well where do you get your figures? You call me pathetic.. people who don't know what to say often turn to "name-calling", so if you have nothing to add to discussion then maybe you should stay out of it then. CIA world factbook states ethnicity of Greece is 98% greek, 2% other, thus 98% of 10,688,058 is still above your 10.2. You discredit my numbers EVEN WHEN they come from credible sources. Where are yours...?

Personal attacks and signatures

I have removed a few unsigned personal attacks from this space. Get a grip, people. Unsigned and undated comments are just pointless. What kind of discussion is it when nobody knows who's saying what? Please try to get your heads round Jkelly's advice about typing four tildes, ~~~~, for automatic signing with username (or IP, if you don't have a username) and timestamp. Please note that no personal attacks is official policy. Don't call people "pathetic", address their arguments. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Dubious claims

I'm not really pleased with certain aspects of this article. Look at the following quotes from the article:

• The modern Greek state and its people are the inheritors of the ancient Greek and Byzantine civilizations and cultures.

• Most modern ethnologists believe that there is a strong and continuous tradition linking ancient and modern Greeks genetically, linguistically and culturally over the millennia, though, of course, there have also been significant contributions to Greek culture from other peoples. The facial reconstruction of skeletons found in ancient tombs, combined with genetic and anthropological studies shows that the ethnic elements of ancient Greece (which, apropos, proved to be highly heterogeneous), remain in the modern population.

The first quote seems like nothing more than a POV, which is what it is. We should say according to whom, or erase the sentence completely.

When I read the results of a genetic study regarding ethnicities, a pseudoscience alarm goes off in my head telling me than what I'm reading is most likely a line of bullcrap. This is especially the case with the second quote, which if the genetic element were removed, would be an extremely accurate and plausible statement. As the quote is unsourced (as the recent spurt of anon vandalism pointed out), it will only make readers think that the whole passage is dubious. It also makes the article POV, as there are many "sources" nowadays (mostly emanating from the University of Skopje or other establishments in FYROM), proposing alternative theories, such as the 'harmonious blend of Arvanite-Vlach-Slav-Turkish peoples with the Greek language superimposed on them' theory, or the 'sub-Saharan origins' theory. The fact that only the (unsourced) genetic links are promoted while everything is left out will make a reader acquainted with alternative theories think the article is Greek POV.

I think the genetic continuity question should be treated as follows:

• Cite the mainstream opinion (whatever it is),
• Cite Fallmerayer's views in their full glory (including their position within mainstream scholarship and Nazi doctrines),
• Cite the sub-Saharan origins theory in their full glory (including their other interesting findings, e.g. the fact that they attributed sub-Saharan origins to the Japanese, and that theory's position within mainstream scholarship).

Additionally, I think that the fact that the Greek language has been continuously spoken in the Greek peninsula for the past few millennia should be mentioned, and if a claim of cultural continuity can be sourced, then that as well. Opinions? --Tēlex 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, probably I shouldn't be the first who responds in this, but here goes: I agree to everything, apart from a technicality regarding the alleged POVness of the first quote. I believe there is a distinct difference between "inheritors" and "offsprings". I may inherit a rich guy, without being his offspring. In that sense, technically, the first quote is correct, since no other people on earth have so many references in their education regarding Ancient and Byzantine Greeks, than the modern Greeks. I think that makes them "inheritors". However, I can understand how this may sound as POV, so I expect a specific proposal regarding rewording. Oh, I agree to all the rest. :NikoSilver: 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't Fallmerayer's claims been totally debunked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs) 11:02, June 26, 2006

Yes. Read Fallmerayer. Also, implying that Greeks are lesser people just because they allegedly have other-than-Ancient-Greek origins, is racist talk. Non-Ancient-Greeks are not lesser people, just as Ancient or Modern-Greeks are not a superior race and we are all born equal. Proving or disproving otherwise is therefore irrelevant and racist. However, the best way to humiliate theories of the sort, is to include them in relative articles with adequate mentioning of the scientific consensus that states otherwise. :NikoSilver: 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to add that genetics "research". I've written the following, but have not inserted it into the article yet:

In 2001, a paper published by certain researchers of the Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology of the Complutense University of Madrid and of the Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje, claimed that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans, that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans, and other extraordinary claims. This paper was subsequently withdrawn, and concerns were expressed as to whether the research was conducted properly and whether it was politically motivated [31]. At present, such theories have no echo in mainstream scholarship, although they are widely espoused in an anti-Hellenic context, especially in Macedonian Slav nationalist publications.

Do you think it'll do? --Tēlex 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure either, but it should definitely be included in Demographics of Greece. Also I'd make the following small modifications:

In 2001, a paper published by certain researchers of the Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology of the Complutense University of Madrid and of the Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje, claimed that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans, that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans, and [some] other extraordinary claims [link to theory]. This paper was subsequently withdrawn, and concerns were expressed as to whether the research was conducted properly and whether it was politically motivated [32]. At present, such theories have no echo in mainstream scholarship, although they are widely espoused in an anti-Hellenic context, especially in Macedonian Slav nationalist publications [link to one of them].

What do you think? :NikoSilver: 15:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nik, I'm quoting the source. It does not say what the other extraordinary claims were - it just says they were made. --Tēlex 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I thought the link in the first paragraph of your source worked, but it gives an "erased" notification. What about my proposal for Demographics of Greece? :NikoSilver: 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs here (and maybe there also). My motto is always tell the readers everything they could possible find out any other way. That way, you can monitor what you tell them. Imagine, if this article covers up the Fallmerayer thesis etc... that will 1) make the article look one sided (i.e. biased), and b) the reader may discover the theory in a more unreliable (i.e. .mk nationalist) source, and fall for it. By presenting things in their full context (for example, .mk nationalist sources don't mention that the paper was later withdrawn), we are protecting the gullible and uninformed reader. If the only sources on the topic are the nationalist sources, τότε καήκαμε! --Tēlex 16:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. I agree with your reasoning, plus WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. I saw you included a "...such as Fallmerayer..." sentence. Care to add the sub-saharan thing and then discredit them both too? :NikoSilver: 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of discrediting. It's about presenting the facts. Such theories appear nowhere in mainstream scholarship (some of them appear only in nationalist literature). There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. --Tēlex 13:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

...and discrediting them. :-):NikoSilver: 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point. Should we add it? --Tēlex 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't. it is a theory that has proven to be wrong, it would be unecessary to add it. also, this way we may misinform the readers in our attempt to list all theories... only theories still considered as possible have a place here. if there will be an article Origin of the Greeks (i have seen many similar articles about other ethnic groups), it can be added in the 'historic veriew' of the past ideas and thoughts concerning the descent of the modern Greeks, that now are out of date. --Hectorian 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent Telex edits

This user has made one comment on the discussion boards concerning this, he has recieved replies, and as of yet not replied, yet he continues to revert material. Including a new picture I made for the infobox. I have already informed an admin, who has stated he is looking into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs) 05:44, June 27, 2006

Actually your image was not reverted by Telex, but by another anon (user 84.164.239.158 - see this). I am sure Telex supports your new image, the same way that I do, as it is obvious by this edit. What is the rest of your comment about? If for the intro paragraph, then the one user who has responded (me) supports the change. What would there be for him to respond to an agreement? You seem very familiar with WP procedures (admins/pics etc). Would you be kind enough to log in and use your existing username, or register if you don't have one? Just so that we know that you're the same person talking everytime, since IP's change... :NikoSilver: 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe there are people in 2006 who still take seriously Falmeloyers unproved anti-scientific theories. There is no conversation about the origin of the Greeks, genetics proved everything. Just beware of some fake "genetic surveys" made by Slavs which are frequent at the internet.

It is really unbelievable how the fierce anti-Greek hate of some people can be expressed in ALL the aspects... (unsigned comment by User:Ellinas arkas 2006-07-08 22:48:29)

The 2001 Greek Census

Please understand that the Greek Census does NOT give the figure of 98% ethnic Greeks. THe correct number of Greeks is given as approximately 10,3 million, with no recorded ethnic Greeks. This is because they were incvluded as Greeks, not as foreigners in the actual Census survey.

Anyone who refuses to accept the official Census results may feel free to invent his/her own figures: meanwhile, those of us who are normal will stick with the figure of 10,3 m. --87.202.105.94 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Greek government has said that 98% of the population are Greeks (and this can be seen in hundrends of sources, e.g. the CIA factbook). have u got any source to support your claim? if not, i will revert u... --Hectorian 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon. If you say the total number of ethnic Greeks in Greece is 100%, I will LOL. Prove it! --Tēlex 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS JUST APPALLING. THE GREEK STATE DOES NOT GIVE THE FIGURE OF 98% ETHNIC GREEKS. YOU FIND WHERE IT IS SAID: ONLY THJE USELESS CIA FACTBOOK SAYS IT, FROM THE YEAR 1980. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND LOOK AT THE CENSUS DATA, MALAKA.--85.75.52.40 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you actually explained where you got your figure from (I can't find it in the census), it would help. Otherwise, it'd probably be best to quote the Greek government (via the CIA World Factbook). --Tēlex 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The most detailed source is http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/general/IMEPO_Final_Report_English.pdf page8 (p1 on paper) of the file explains that the 762.000 immigrants found in the Census include only 6 homogeneis. --85.75.52.40 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is:

Number of Greeks in Greece = Total Population - Foreign Citizenship Holders homogeneis

Sound's plausable. --Tēlex 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So we have an agreement on how to count Greeks, but you revert to the falsified numbers anyway?? Great stuff, make sure that Wikipedia is completely useless...--87.203.112.202 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Miskin is pushing a POV, with false data and refusing to provide correct datasources. I have reverted to the official data of the Greek state, as opposed to the Miskin official data.--87.203.112.202 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex is repeatedly archiving this page, as if there has been a resolution of the false Census data issue. THIS FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOUR IS A DISGRACE, AND WILL BE REPORTED TO WIKIPEDIA ADMIN.--87.203.112.202 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, LET'S REPEAT THE OFFICIAL GREEK STATE DATA FOR THE MALAKES HERE: ALL OF THE 762,000 IMMIGRANTS IN THE 2001 CENSUS ARE NOT ETHNIC GREEKS. Got that? This means you have to remove 762,000 from the total population recorded in the 2001 Census? Got that? The result is the figure of 10,3 m. SO WHERE THE FUCK DO THESE OTHER FIGURES COME FROM???????????????--87.203.112.202 11:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the CIA World Factbook, the Greek government does not recognize any ethnic divisions, and places the figure of ethnic Greeks at 98%. Also, your source on the number of homogeneis is not official, and if I'm not much mistaken, up to 200,000 immigrants from Albania have been documented as homogeneis. --Tēlex 11:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The MMO report for IMEPO (Institouto Metanasteftikis Politikis) mentions 4 conflicting numbers:

a) 6 homogeneis according to official Greek census figures.

b) 150,000-200,000 card carrying homogeneis from the Ministry of Public order. This is an unofficial figure.

c) 328,000 active immigrant registrations from IKA. This is an official figure.

d) a 2001 Immigration legalization law attracted 368,000 applications from which 220,000 were accepted.

So we have the following figures:

i. 10,964,020-762,000 6=10,202,026 official census number

ii. a)10,964,020-762,000 150,000=10,352,020 or b)10,964,020-762,000 200,000=10,402,020 Unofficial Ministry of Public Order card carrying homogeneis based number

iii. 10,964,020-328,000=10,636,020 IKA based number

iv. 10,964,020-762,000 220,000=10,422,020 from Immigration legalization law.

As usual with statistics every one can believe their own favourite numbers. This study came from Panteion University so although some numbers are unofficial they are the result of research.

Conclusion: Since the figure quoted in the article is based on other estimates we can actually say so in the article quote itself: 2001 census, based on CIA factbook estimates. Quoting just the 2001 census without qualifying the article estimate invites proposals to support estimate i. above and this leads to conflict. (section modified) Dr.K. 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally We are here to estimate and do our research. Using insults and other similar tactics doesn't help the calculations or the Greeks one bit. The provided link was a good research tool, if only the language were better everyone would be farther ahead. Dr.K. 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw some errors in the calculations. Coming right back. Dr.K. 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a phrase about the ethnic origin of the Greeks, stating an indigenous pre-idoeuropean population, the influx of indouropean peoples, some middle-eastern contributions during antiqutity, the Middle Ages and the modern era, and the contribution of slavic immigrations and albanian settlements from the Middle Ages onwards. And not to forget the children of mixed Greek and German/ Swedish/Danish and other Western European origin, who were born thanks to the tourism wave of the late 20th century.

And don't forget the Ethiopian migration that took place during an ancient but unknown time. Miskin 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! OMG, Miskin, I needed that laugh, very appropriate timing. Good one! ;) ~ Mallaccaos 23:02, 18 July 2006

Greek Ancestry

Greek Ancestry

I was wondering if we should put in a section about Greek ancestry – their genetical make up since this is an article about Greek people. Greeks mainly falls into a north African and Arab haplogroup, that is E3b and J with other contributions as well. see these links

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

From the links we can see that Greeks have a strong relationship between North Africans and Arabs. See haplogroup J in the National Geographic webpage and see also haplogroup J2 (m172) and in particular E3b (M35).

There's no such information in neither of the links you provided. There's no way you'll succeed in vandalising this article with your crap, you're only wasting your time. You might as well try to do something useful in your spare time. Miskin 08:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Check my proposal on how to include this in this article in the first section on this page. Also, check the names of three of the "scholars" on the team: M. Blagoevska, V. Zdravkovska, K. Dimitroski. I rest my case ;-) --Tēlex 10:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Miskin i was only suggesting hence i wrote it up here first instead of typing away. But i dont understand why you would think this to be "crap". It is an article about Greek people why not disscuss greek peoples origins? it explains how greece was inhabited by the early historic peoples of Africa and by which tribe it was done by.

As with your statement that you cant see any of the information i wrote, i feel that either 1) you didnt read it at all 2)playing ignorant 3) dont know how to navigate through the webpage

for the geographic webpage it is under genetic markers, y chromosomes. You cant miss it from there, plus its also got a pretty map showing the migration of e3b into greece and with the J2 it tells you (as it also does with e3b). the McDonald study confirms the study by showing you the pie graphs of Europe including greece

Anon, may I draw your attention to this. If we say that this research found that the Greeks have sub-Saharan origins, then we will also have to mention that it also attributed sub-Saharan origins to the Japanese people, and all the other details which appear not in FYROM propaganda publications. --Tēlex 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The links i provided are not propaganda, that article of yours was posted about a totally different individual research by the journal Human Immunology in 2002 (the articles i posted are post 2003) i might add that to what i heard L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza headed the national geographic project in my link (though im not sure of this). I have not seen any research papers declaring greeks to have a relationship with japanese people though, so i would con cur that the the journal Human Immunology would be scientifically incorrect though the articles i found present no such fallacies (yet, that i have found). But if you all object to posting this information in the greek people article i dont care, im simply suggesting that we add it since it gives an idea of where greeks come from.

I'm afraid I don't understand the links. As far as I can see, they don't even mention Greeks. Also, as far as I know, all people descend from people in Africa. That's where humanity began - this issue belongs at human evolution, not here. --Tēlex 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

well if so, but again back to your comment i would totally find it irrelevant to post in the 'Greek people" article that the japanese have a relationship with Africans, it is simply irrelevant to post that in a greek peoples article. But yes i agree that it is human evolution article but if people would like to know where greeks came from or how they got there, or simply how did greek civilization begin by all means the articles may give a good indication of such... look at it as a 35,000 year historical timeline :P

People don't know where the Greeks came from. According to John Chadwick, the Greek ethnicity came into being where it is now, in the southern Balkan peninsula. The Greeks' ancestors are sometimes referred to as the Pelasgians, and their origins belong in their own article. --Tēlex 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, well i see that there is a general consensus to leave it out so there is no point in arguing the matter then, it stays out i guess (also it seems to be too vague to put it in, if not conflicting accounts)

State Department Census

I have a question regarding why was the est. 3,000,000 Americans who claim Greek descent (State Department 2005): why was it removed, since its more updated then the 2000 census. An estimated three million Americans resident in the United States claim Greek descent Regards. ~ Mallaccaos 23:02, 18 July 2006

Whew, thanks for finding that! I removed it because I couldn't find the source. Give me a minute to re-add it. I'm working on Greek diaspora now (I'll add it there as well). Give me a minute to update the table here as well. --Tēlex 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Telex.  :) ~ Mallaccaos 23:02, 18 July 2006

Archieve

This is an archieve, please do not edit it any further. Discussions should take place on the current talk page. Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)