Talk:Greeks

Comments from Talk:Greeks before merge

Hmm, looking at the content, perhaps ethnic Greek should be merged into this article. --Shallot 21:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Ethnic Greeks before merge

I'm a bit unsure of the purpose of this page. Is it ever going to be anything but a stub saying, essentially, "see Greece"? -- Ortonmc 03:55, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It may make more sense as a Wiki-dictionary entry. The idea of being of Greek heritage was so common, a defining entry off of the disambiguation page seemed appropriate.Skeetch 04:11, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that anything linking here would be better served by a link to one of the other "Greek" pages. I fixed one obvious one, but there are a bunch that might go to various eras in Greek history, which I'm not well versed in. Wouldn't it make more sense to send people to the disambiguation page, rather than "click here to go to Greece"? I guess I have difficulty seeing any difference between modern Greek culture (which would come under "Greece") and "ethnic Greek". -- Ortonmc 05:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If this page is to stay it should develop more along the lines of, say, Ethnic Swedes, Ethnic German, etc. That is it should include sections on ethnic Greeks in different countries, expulsion of Greeks from Turkey in the 1920s and so on. -- apoivre 17:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments post-merge — June 27, 2004

I've just merged these, "being bold". — OwenBlacker 03:47, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Misidentification of Greeks = those living in Byzantine empire

I have removed the following passage because it is grossly incorrect. There were many peoples living in those regions who were not Greek in any sense of the word: Armenians, Slavs, Jews, Albanians, Vlachs, and at some periods Arabs and Franks. For that matter, the Turkic population movements started before the 1400s.

In particular, any persons living in what used to be the Byzantine Empire and/or around the Aegean, Black Sea or Ionian Sea can be identified as ethnic Greek if their origin predates the Seljuk Turk invasions that started around the 1400s.

--User:Macrakis

Hellene vs. Greek

The ordinary word in English for the Greek people is "Greeks", not "Hellenes", so it is preferred in the Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Of course, the word in Greek is Έλληνες (Elines), but this is an English encyclopedia, not a Greek encyclopedia; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I am aware that some Greeks prefer the name "Hellene" in English. But others of us prefer the word "Greek", and it is consistent with other articles on the subject. Surely we are not going to start saying "Hellenic language", "Hellenic Orthodox Church", "Hellenic Mythology", etc. But I would like to see discussion on this before being overly bold.... --Macrakis 23:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was moved recently by User:Sysin. My initial reaction was to roll it back, but then I looked the term up in English dictionaries and it does appear to be synonymous.

Please feel free to move things back if it's really the right thing to do. --Joy [shallot] 11:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to reorganize Greeks, Hellenes and Greek (name). Any suggestions are welcome. Sysin 20:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea on the redirection of Hellene to Greek. I concur. Better to have a single article rather than two dealing with the same thing. I'll try to add more information on the history of the names Greeks were known by during the ages.

See the discussion in Greece#Name. The Babiniotis dictionary has a good discussion of the different names. --Macrakis 01:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religion and Genetics

I removed part of User:Macrakis edits on religion, as (imho) they consisted of information that belongs in the Greek Religion and the Greek Orthodoxy articles.

The current text claims that the ancients "believed in the Greek religion". There are two fallacies here. First of all, there was no one Greek religion, as the Greek religion article itself points out. Secondly, there was not the modern sense of "believing in". People worshipped gods. This can be expressed without making the article any longer. As for Greek Orthodoxy, the relevant part here is the relationship to Greek identity. Do you claim that today Greek Jews are not considered Greek, for example? It also needs to be clear that *some* nationalists do in fact believe that only Orthodox Christians are truly Greek. That belongs in the Greeks article, not the religion article. --Macrakis 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for genetics: Obviously some people still care, or else there would no be so much ado about Fallmerayer and ongoing DNA research. At four paragraphs, the "Ancestry" section is way too long for this article, the second two paragraphs should probably go. Sysin 02:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obviously some people still care. But modern ethnographers do not. As for Fallmereyer, it is amazing to me that people are still discussing such an obsolete theory. But it is true, as you say, that they do. What they do not discuss is the fact that most villages in the Western Peloponese had Slavic names until the Greek state changed them.... --Macrakis 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous User:128.113.201.75 has been systematically replacing attempts at neutral language with Greek nationalist POV. Instead of revert wars, could we discuss this on Talk? --Macrakis 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if this latest attempt sticks. I even left in the omaimon-omoglosson nonsense, since it keeps coming back anyway Sysin 18:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by 128.113.201.75

Anonymous User:128.113.201.75 continues to insert tendentious nationalist language after every paragraph of historical discussion -- without discussion on Talk, despite repeated requests. Also, "omothriskon" is not an ancient Greek word as far as I can tell, so it is out of place. This user refuses to engage in discussion on the Talk page on these edits, and persists in putting back the same content. This is making it hard to make progress on this page. --Macrakis 15:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Greeks not a people?

Why does Charonite (talk · contribs) insist that the Greeks aren't a people but a nation? Not only is this simply and obviously false (and at odds with the rest of the article — look at the very first section header, for example), but to place it in the first sentence of the summary on Greeks is particularly glaring.

Many Greek people (about whom the article is written) are and have been members of Greek nations, but to talk of the Greeks as being a nation who have populated Greece from the 17th century BCE is peculiar at best. That's just not what "nation" means. The claim would also surprise many Greeks who don't have Greek nationality. Is the wording being modelled on organisations like the Nation of Islam? I really can't make it out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

{copied from User talk:Charonite:)

Show me where I wrote that the Greeks are not a people. The Greeks are both a people and a nation. Another one in the bunch who falsely accuses me for errors I did not create. All I want is to read Greek history that is honest in its content. Nothing more, nothing less.

Charonite May 2, 2005, 9:34 A.M. EST

First, calm down; civilised discussions aren't possible if one person is too touchy. Secondly, I changed the article to read that the Greeks were a people, and you reverted it to read that the Greeks are a nation. Given that the article is about the Greeks, not about Greece, and that the rest of the article refers to the Greek people, my change seems both factual and consistent. That you reverted it implied that you disagreed with it. Moreover, to say that the Greeks are a nation is at best misleading; what exactly do you mean by "nation"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I've changed the summary again; it simply makes no sense to talk of a nation populating a country. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I've also redone the corrections that I made to links (e.g. 3nd Century and Turks); whoever reverted my edits simply did so wholesale, rather than taking the time to change the bits with which they disagreed. There's more Wikifying that needs to be done, but I've corrected the dashes that I spotted, and I'll do a more thorough copy-edit when I can. It's generally a good article, so it seems a pity that it should be let down by minor formatting problems. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree - unfortunately the baby (your fixes) went out with the bathwater at some point. Sysin 20:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

PoV

I can't see anything on the Talk page to justify the ugly PoV template, so I've removed. I hope that that's not tempting fate.

---

By the way, I seem to remember coming across the term "linovamvaki", used in Cyprus; sometimes it was used politically (to refer to people who were neither left nor right, but sat on the fence), but I believe that its roots went back to either Greek Cypriots who had converted to Islam or Turkish Cypriots who had converted to Christianity. Does anyone know this term? If so, I'd be interested to know exactly what it meant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The "limnovamvaki" is a small piece of cotton that is worn on the outside and it was used by ethnic Greek Crypto-Christians in Cyprus. It was definitely not used by Turkish-Cypriots who converted to Christianity. Any Turkish-Cypriot who converted to Christianity was severely punished. The millet system saw to that. Anyway, the Greek-Cypriots used the "limnovamvaki" to hide their identity from other Muslims, but at the same time maintain their Greek identity by makiing themselves recognizable only by Orthodox Christian Greeks. Charonite May 4, 2005 3:44 P.M. EST

Thanks for this. I'd thought that it was "linovamvaki" meaning "linen-cotton"; I'm not sure exactly what "limnovamvaki" means, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, linovamvako is a fabric made of linen (lino) and cotton (vamvaki)--see Babiniotis or Andriotis dictionary. Presumably it followed the same sense-development as English "linsey-woolsey": not just a particular fabric, but also a strange mixture or mish-mosh in general, e.g. half Greek/half Turkish. I don't know about its specific meaning (Greek language, Muslim religion? Christian mother, Muslim father?), which isn't mentioned in the dictionaries. The story about the piece of cotton sounds, um, doubtful; the spelling limnovamvaki (lake-cotton?) doesn't make much sense and isn't recorded by the dictionaries. Perhaps what it really is is a troll? I am beginning to wonder if Charonite isn't simply trolling us overly-earnest Wikipedians: take a look at the extravagantly implausible theories he propounds on his talk page. As for conversion (apostasy) from Islam, yes, that is punished in principle by death. --Macrakis 22:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Red links

I thought that the article would look better without red links, so I've started the article on Javan. Looking at the next, I've linked it to Archaic, but it could do with more specificity I think. There's just Greek diaspora left, and I'll investigate that when I can. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Archaic leads to a discussion of North American archaeology - which is not what is needed here. Septentrionalis 19:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry — I glanced at it too hastily. It's not immediately obvious that it's geographically limited. Unless there's another more general article, then, the link will remain red until someone writes one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, many thanks for the Javan article.Sysin

My pleasure. I've also added a (very stubby) stub article Archaic period in Greece. It needs a lot of work, but it's a start. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Reaching a compromise?

I hope that moving the 3 'hot' words to the footnotes is an acceptable solution. The blank footnote (after "common habits") is needed for formatting reasons. Sysin 21:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am always glad to see compromise; but there is a real difficulty.

Unfortunately, the word omothriskos is not Classical or Hellenistic Greek. Its first appearance is in a 4th century Father (See Sophocles: Dictionary of Bysantine Greek, and LSJ - the latter of which does not have it at all). This is not merely an accident of survival:

In pagan Greek writers, thriskeia does not mean "religion" as a whole at all; it means a particular rite, observance, or prohibition. Thus Herodotus (2,37) speaks of the Egyptians keeping innumberable thriskeias; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2,64) writes that Numa established agneias te kai thriskeias for each god. Soranus uses it for "superstition".

(I think the ancient Greeks, as opposed to Jews or Christians writing in Greek, simply did not have the concept of one religion as against another - there were the gods, who ruled all mankind. Another people would call them by different names, but they would call bread and olives by different names too. )Septentrionalis 23:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that these 3 words (which do not appear anywhere in the English language), have no place in an English-language article in Wikipedia. Since Charonite feels they are so important, at least let's have them somewhere where they can be put in the proper context without disruption article flow.

I'm pretty happy with the article content as it is right now, but not with the format. The identity section goes on and on without a place for the reader to rest. It probably needs to be broken down to 5 periods (Ancient, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Modern). We also need a section about Greek culture (mostly links to existing articles). Sysin 10:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The proper context for "omaimon, omothriskon, omoglosson" (or maybe even omoaimon [sic]) is probably a discussion of modern Greek nationalist ideology. But I don't know enough about the history and use of this slogan to write it. (Was it used in the 19th c? Before? Is it limited to right wing? Is it taught in Greek schools, and in what periods? etc.) Anyone else? --Macrakis 13:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Article Needs Improvement

I am sorry. As much as "neutrality" is needed, I find the article to be lacking in how it portrays Greeks. First of all, the notion of Greeks having a common descent is not comparatively recent.

The article says comparatively recent as of the time of Herodotus. Adding then to avoid apparent confusion. 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if the term "comparatively recent" is applied for then or now. The Greek notion of a common descent existed before Herodotus. Don't get me wrong, Herodotus helped to write things down and explain how the Greeks back then perceived themeselves, but the notion of a common ancestry still existed. Change the wording. Charonite May 6, 2005 2:28 A.M. EST

I know that Papparigopoulos, a Greek historian, tied together the ancient, Byzantine, and modern aspects of Greek history during the 19th century. Many would assume that because of said historian's work that the concept of a common Greek ancestry was born. However, ancient Greek tribes indeed believed that they all shared the same blood, culture, religion (with local variances), and language.

Source for this, other than Herodotus, already quoted? Septentrionalis 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking me for the source or did you cite it in the article already? Charonite May 5, 2005 2:25 A.M. EST

The reason why people today would say that "the nature of Greek identity has been an open question since ancient times" was because the Greek mentality (for all tribes) was stubborn and very locally oriented. The Athenians called other Greek tribes "barbaric," but not in the sense that, let's say, the Spartans or the Macedonians were not Greek in their ancestry.

Demosthenes would disagree; and observe that Alexander proved his Greekness at Olympia by proving that he was not Macedonian, but Argive. Septentrionalis 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the entire paragraph before writing this? Let me explain again. The term "barbaric" has two meanings. The first meaning was attributed toward civilizations that did not speak Greek and were mocked for their unsophisticated tongues. The second meaning was attributed to Greek civilizations that were not well-developed culturally. It was, in essence, a dualistic term. Charonite May 6, 2005 2:32 A.M. EST

Instead, the term was used by the Athenians not only to distinguish non-Greeks from Greeks, but to also compare themselves to other Greek tribes who do not possess the same level of cultural development.

Barbaros comes from bar-bar, "jabber" - usable only of a Greek-speaker by extreme metaphor, which is not likely to be frequent enough to explain the evidence.

Yes, thank you. I am well aware of the etymological origins of the word "barbarian." However, there have been instances where Greek tribes were called "barbarians." It is not surprising if one understands the social environment that existed in Greece with the presence of the city-states and the wars they fought. Charonite May 5, 2005 2:34 A.M. EST

However, the Athenians were always cognizant of the fact that other Greek city-states and tribes were of the same Hellenic stock. Actually, the Pelasgians, a proto-Greek tribe (which Wikipedia falsely states were non-Greek), were deemed as the progenitors of the first Hellenic tribes (i.e. Selloi, etc).

The Pelasgian question is v. complicated; the earliest Lemnians did not speak Greek, any more than the Minoans (the archaeological culture) - and Corinthos, ktl, are cited as Pelasgian words. Septentrionalis 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus states that the Hellenes came from the Pelasgians (if you need proof, just ask). Many will state that Herodotus called the Pelasgians "barbarians," or speaking a "barbaric" tongue, which makes them non-Greek. However, again the term "barbaric" was used in two ways. It was used to indicate non-Greek civilizations and it was also used to indicate Greeks who did not possess a great civlization of highly cultural proportions. Achaeans, Phrygians, Trojans, Dorians, Ionians, Minoans, Myceneans, etc. were all off-shoots of the Pelasgians (i.e. Sea People). Greeks knew where they came from, but they were more concerned about preserving their local identities (i.e. Spartans to Spartans, Athenians to Athenians, etc.) rather than uniting.

It was up until the Persian invasions that Greeks began to see how much they had in common as they fought a common enemy. Also, please put this phrase after the statement made by Isocrates, "Yet, the Greeks maintained the distinct racial, ethnic, linguistic, and religious characteristics that bound them together". Also, please place the following sentence after the last paragraph in the Classical and Roman section, "The distinctions between peoples in both Alexander's Empire and the Roman Empire were still maintained."

For my part, feel free; but these statements require, and will get, severe qualification. Was Cassius Dio a Greek, a Roman, or a Bithynian? How about Justinian?Septentrionalis 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me help you mitigate the confusion you are dealing with right now. The ethnic/racial Romans (as opposed to political Romans that entailed both Roman and non-Roman citizens of the Roman Empire) were Greeks. Bithynians were Greeks also, but on a more local scale. So you can call Cassius Dio a Greco-Roman Bithynian. His descent is Greco-Roman (or entirely Greek, no difference) and he is from Nicaea in Bithynia. Charonite May 6, 2005 2:41 A.M. EST

Also, the Greek Orthodox Chruch is not experiencing a diminishing role in modern Greek life. Regardless of the changes that are ocurring in the world, many Greeks still maintain their ethno-religious identity. It is absolutely wrong to state that to be Greek means Greek Orthodox is a notion only maintained by a "conservative minority." This proves that anything stated by a "nationalist" or a "conservative" is seen as a subject of marginalization. If nobody makes these necessary changes, then I will do it. I am tired of seeing Greek history and identity turned upside-down. It is no wonder Wikipedia is deemed an unreliable source lately. Charonite May 5, 2005 4:28 P.M. EST

If Greek means to be Greek Orthodox, was Proclus Greek? was Cardinal Bessarion? Septentrionalis 21:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

What is this, an interrogation room? Of course Proclus was Greek. So is Cardinal Johannes Bessarion. However, you are ignoring the importance of the Greek Orthodox Church to the Greek people for well over a millenia. This ecclesiastic institution housed and helped preserve for centuries Greek identity. The institution contributed to the development of our medieval common Greek language (koine). Yes, I know. Our true religion as Greeks should encompass our worshipping of the 12 Olympian gods. However, when Greeks started becoming Christians, they did not want to abandon their culture, pagan religion, and traditions. What did they do? They fused together ancient Greek culture and traditions with the tenets of Christianity. That is why being Greek means Greek-Orthodox. When you go to church (if you go to church that is) and you see people kissing icons and surrounding them with gold and valuables, where do you think these rituals come from? Our ancient past. Kissing an icon of Jesus is no different from bowing before the statue of Zeus. Having gold plated icons is no different from giving tribute to the gods in rituals of worship. The ancient Greek culture survived through Greek-Orthodoxy. If the Rhomaions (medieval Greeks) did not fuse their ancient culture with Christianity, their way of life would have become extinct.

I don't see why you insist on presenting Greeks as bigoted and stupid. For example: "It is absolutely wrong to state that to be Greek means Greek Orthodox is a notion only maintained by a 'conservative minority'"? Do you really want to tell the world that more than a minority of Greeks believe something so silly? The article has to be defended against anti-Greek nonsense like this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I present the Greeks as bigoted and stupid? How dare you falsely accuse me of such things!!! I am presenting the Greeks as a proud people who wish only to preserve their identity. Is there something wrong with that?! To you, yes. Where do you come up with this garbage? Literally. Do you wake up in the morning and say "Gee wilikers! How many Greek "anti-Greeks" can I falsely point out today?" Do you get kicks out of this? I have been to Greece numerous times and I know for a fact that Greeks are intelligent, and conservative. I also know that Greeks are dualistic. In other words, they are open to new ideas, but maintain their old ways and adapt to changing environments. That is how our people survived throughout the centuries while other civilizations have died out. Where are the great Sumerians? Gone. Where are the cultured Babylonians? Gone. Where are the Greeks? Right here. Right now. In the 21st century. It is due to our ancestors' flexible and dualistic mentality that we as Greeks today exist and even talk about our people in the first place. However, God forbid, it is an act of anti-Greekness if someone expresses Greek history and identity honestly. You think that I am an anti-Greek? Ftou-sou. Is this how you treat your Greek brothers and sisters?! Huh?! Answer me!!! ANSWER ME!!! I'd expect this from a person who is not very knowledgeable about Greek history/identity, but not from an intelligent Greek who I am certain would not want Greek history and identity be presented falsely. Then again, I don't know what your intentions are Mel Etitis. But for your information, I am proud to be born a Greek and I love my people and ancestral country (countries if you include Cyprus). I had family that died in wars protecting Greece. Hey, while your at it with your false anti-Greek accusations, why don't you call my clan anti-Greek? Hey, I think it is alright if you spit upon the graves of my ancestors who died so that I could live a better life. Of course, you would not understand that since you are so damn eager to point the finger at me and call me and the content I present as anti-Greek. All I want to do is to make sure Greek history and identity are presented correctly. Is that so wrong? To you, yes. Deny it all you want. You probably get kicks from seeing Greek history/identity butchered. Have fun ruining your Hellenic kin's legacy. I demand an apology from you right now for your false accusations and slander. Otherwise, I will consistently edit (constructively mind you, no need for needless destruction of valuable information that needs improvement) this article and ignore your reasons for changing my edits. You owe me an apology. NOW!!! Apologize now and we can diffuse this argument before it gets worse. Otherwise, the blame is all yours for what you have started. You have offended me and my honor. Ftou-sou. Ftou-sou. I will not calm down until you apologize. For your sake, I expect you to read this whole paragraph and write one response below this one. ONLY ONE! That one response should constitute a message apologizing for your offensive slander. YOU MAY QUESTION MY EDITS, BUT NEVER MY HONOR AND MY LOVE FOR GREEECE/CYPRUS AND THE GREEKS. Good-day. Charonite May 6, 2005 3:52 A.M. EST

Nevertheless, both of Charonite's suggested additions do exaggerate a truth (perhaps by a factor of 10, but still...). There was a continuous Greekness from Alexander to Heraclius; a couple sentences on how and how much would probably forestall him. Septentrionalis 02:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding where I am coming from. I am not exaggerating a truth, however, just merely emphasizing it. Exaggerating it would mean putting sentences in almost every paragraph of the article. That would be a bad thing for readers to across to. Also, there is no need to somehow "forestall me" as if I am the bogeyman bent on scaring people with my "silly" statements. Look, if you have something to talk about that is constructive, the do so. If not, then leave me and my edits alone. If the cost of being honest means being marginalized in this unreliable database, then so be it. All I want is to see Greek history and identity portrayed properly. I cannot emphasize that enough (or exaggerate as some people here would say). Charonite May 6, 2005 3:14 A.M. EST

Article Images

I won't unilaterally fix this, but I have an grumpy-old-man observation to make: After 4000 years of Greek culture and achievement, the first image on the "Greeks" article is a photo of 11 overpayed and undereducated guys who managed to beat some other overpaid and undereducated guys in a game of ball. Sysin 08:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, despite being the one who put it there. As I explained to User:Project2501a when he asked (but I should have explained here, sorry), I wanted to start the article with a picture of modern Greeks, rather than giving the impression that "Greeks" is an archaeological term. The footballers were a sort of place-holder until I (or someone) could find something better. User:Project2501a has said that he'll try to find something suitable.

By the way, 4,000 years is a bit truncated, isn't it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Table

Does anyone else find the table unnecessary and unsightly? Septentrionalis 23:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I also dislike the fact that an image was removed to make way for it, and that it was all done without discussion. I've replaced the image and moved the table here:

Greeks
Total population:	2004: c. 15 million
Significant populations in:	Greece: 10.964.020 Cyprus: 771.657 United States: 1.153.295 Germany: 363.000 Canada: 320.000 Albania: 45.000 Former Soviet Union: 200.000
Language	Greek
Religion	Predominantly Greek Orthodox, with atheist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Muslim minorities.
Related ethnic groups	Indo-Europeans   Greeks

I don't have any problems in principle with the use of a table, but the colours are jarring and ugly in the context of the article, and the placement and precise content need to be considered. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I added the table because other pages on ethnic groups have them (e.g. Serbs, Bulgarians, Norwegians, English etc.) REX 11:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, nothing wrong in principle — but you also deleted a recently-added image to make way for it, and the choice of colours needs to be discussed (also the content — for example, the inclusion of Greeks as a related group...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for deleting the image; it was my intention to move it, but I forgot. I don't like the colour either, but all other pages thve it in those colours. REX 14:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about:

Greeks
Total population:	2004: c. 15 million
Significant populations in:	Greece: 10.964.020 Cyprus: 771.657 United States: 1.153.295 Germany: 363.000 Canada: 320.000 Albania: 45.000 Former Soviet Union: 200.000
Language	Greek
Religion	Predominantly Greek Orthodox, with atheist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Muslim minorities.
Related ethnic groups	Indo-Europeans

I'ma little surprised at the implication that the U.K. doesn't have a very significant Greek community, by the way. Until recently, at least, London was supposed to be the third-largest Greek-speaking city in the world. Does anyone have figures? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t like it. I think that it is too bright. Why not have the top cell dark gray and all the others light gray? Also, it’s a shame that there are no available data on how many Greeks live in the UK. REX 16:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the use of the colors of the Greek flag; other articles should copy. (And, for myself, I find this less glaring than the gold/orange version. Gray would be drab.)

The use of Indo-Europeans as a related ethnic group is controversial: were they an ethnic group, and in what sense? Do we need any of this? Let's drop the category altogether... Septentrionalis 17:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the table is that the numbers stated are not all on the same basis. As they appear on this table, with no footnotes. these numbers appear deceptively authoritative and normalized. The Albanian and CIS figures are controversial ones, I used numbers that appear to be the concensus among non-nationalistic Greek sources. As for U.K and Sweden, the numbers are significant, but I wouldn't find any reliable statistic, and was hoping that someone else would do the hard work after I picked the low-lying fruit... Sysin 18:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

According to [1] "There are over 300,000 Greeks in the UK". This BBC page also has some relevvant information, but still nothing precise. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article should be as Wikipedia recommends. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template and Template:Ethnic group. Please note that they say An acceptable alternative to the coloring here is to use just a white background throughout, with an optional illustration in this space at the top. See Jew for an example of this approach. However, please don't adopt arbitrary colors for an Infobox without first discussing it in the project. Thanks. You may wish to use Template:Ethnic group, introduced February 2005. REX 15:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The talk page suggests that neither these standard colors nor the existence of a strong color standard is widely supported. The only reason given for the existence of a standard at all is to avoid certain garish choices; and I do not think the "Greek" table above is garish. (Presumably there are also cases where the ethnic colors are controversial. Will anyone deny the Greek colors are blue and white?)

My choices are:

• blue and white, much as above;
• brown and tan, as on the project talk page; or
• no table at all.

It could be white and white, but why? 21:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The brown and tan will do. REX 14:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The page Jew is mentioned as not having a table, but the Jewish ethnic divisions pages have tables, see Ashkenazim and Sephardim. REX 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Informal poll-table

What has been decided then? Is the table going to be used or not? REX 11:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

• I Support the use of the table. It is true that some of the data entered on it could be improved; but as most other pages use that very table, for the sake of the uniformity of Wikipedia, it should be included in this article. Also, I would like to point out that although the page Jew doesn't have the standard table, the Jewish ethnic divisions do. REX 14:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Jewish ethnic divisions have a reason to use it: to clarify their relation with each other and with the Jewish ethnicity as a whole. I see no such reason here. Septentrionalis

The figures for greeks are incorrect. Australia has around 600,000 greeks, and in cyprus the number of greeks is around 500,000. There is around 200,000 turkish people there. Also the number of greeks in Greece is maximum 10 mill. 650,000 albanians and around another 300-350,000 immigrants. Amend

Oppose

• I would oppose the use of the table. It emphasizes four pieces of information: the population of Greek diaspora, which is unreliable and inconsistent - and will be very long when finished; that Greeks speak Greek (to say nothing of "Slav-speaking Greeks", a significant number of Greek-Americans don't); the religion of Greeks (I trust atheist is second for alphabetical order, not an effort to stir up trouble); and the assertion that the Greeks are related to the "Indo-European ethnic group". All bland; all potentially controversial. Why? Septentrionalis 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Macrakis 00:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If anything, I would like a Template:Greek, like Template:Jew -Septentrionalis.

I agree that the "standard" table is not useful. - Sysin

Informal poll-colors

I'm not sure who wants what, so could people indicate their preferences below using three tildes? This isn't a vote that will decide anything, just a way of getting a clear idea about which colour scheme has the most support. I've added the names about which I'm fairly sure, but if I've misunderstood, please move yourself to the right colour scheme. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to link up Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template here, so that it's obvious why the brown taxobox is used. --Joy [shallot] 11:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Original colours

Blue and white

1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)
2. Septentrionalis

Brown and tan (see here)

1. REX
2. Macrakis -- or something else fairly neutral. I don't think the national colors belong here. That would be a bad precedent, because it wouldn't be uniform across articles, and it would be contentious. Do we really want the Catholic and Protestant Irish arguing about the colors? etc. etc.

White

None

1. Sysin -- The French don't have a table. Neither do the Germans, the Italians or the Turks. The Jews have a table that is non-compliant to the standard, both in terms of colors and in terms of content, and might be worth imitating. In fact, it's hard to find articles that conform to the "standard".

   A quick search threw up Czechs, Chuvash, Hmar, Norwegian people, Vietnamese people, Dutch people, Caddo, Pumi, Nu people, Lhoba, Slovenians, Acadian, English (people), Modoc, Kabylie, Zhuang, Iyengar, Maghrebim, Qiang, and Tuareg (I was searching only for pages using the original colour-scheme). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

2. Lacking a better option, I'll vote for this one - the WP:EG template is an optional thing that doesn't really need to be adhered to. The editors of this page can contribute what they like, the color scheme cannot be set in stone. --Joy [shallot] 11:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Delphic Amphictyons?

Can someone please explain who or what are the "Delphic Amphictyons". Paul August ☎ 20:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks

The article Names of the Greeks has been nominated for WP:FAC. You can add your vote Wikipedia:Featured article candidates if you would like to support the article. Colossus 19:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A friendly but brutally honest observation: I dislike the direction the Names of the Greeks article has taken; it's way too long and hostile to anyone not already familiar to the subject, and in many places it drifts into off-topic territory.

 

Quite frankly, I also dislike the changes you recently made to the "names" section of the "Greeks" article. The information conveyed in the previous text was a better introduction to the subject (with the link to the full article for anyone wishing for more information). I'd like the opinion of other frequent contributors to this article on the subject.

 

Regards, Sysin 22:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Fallmerayer

Fallmerayer or his theories have no place in this article. Modern research has outdated him, and besides, his arguments about the bastardization of the Greek nation after centuries of invasions was discredited even during his own time by other academics. Fallmerayer valued little to nothing of academic value and most interest in his is purely historical, as one out of many attempts in historiography. Discussions of the historical continuity of Hellenes in this article should include only acceptable academic positions and not discredited or even ambiguous arguments like Fallmerayer's. If it is necessary to raise the issue of continuity at all (which I dont think it needs to be), modern scholars should be referenced, not Fallmerayer. Colossus 16:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is exactly why he should be mentioned – and refuted. Fallmerayer's theories were popular enough, less than a century ago, that they can still be found in widely read, if out-of-date, descriptions of the Greeks. Edith Hamilton may be the best known in English; there are others, including Nicholas Gage writing about Greece less than twenty years ago. (The Epiriots are more Greek than other Greeks because they're blonder; I regret to say that I'm not making this up.) Septentrionalis 19:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibbon is discredited today too but still remains a popular read. Does that mean we need to pinpoint and be scholastic on every out-of date argument he has made on Roman history? No, we accept modern historiography without refuting every single argument that has been made since the first researcher. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means it needs to remain concise and up to date with the latest consensus, and for space's sake that renders Fallmerayer expendible. Perhaps in another article that dealt more specifically and in greater detail with the ethnology of Greeks Fallmerayer would be an acceptable addition. Colossus 20:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis on this. Fallmerayer has been scientifically discredited, but for various reasons his theory is still being propagated, either by outdated sources, or by those who wish it were true for political reasons. It must be mentioned and refuted, not ignored. My approach was to add a 'counterpoint' section in the Fallmerayer article itself a few months ago Sysin 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

His theory is propagated by whom? Can you cite any authoritative sources that do so? He certainly isnt propagated by any academics today that I know of. His paper has been widely discredited even since his own time, and no longer do any academics pay attention to him. An academic consensus has already been established on the question of Greek continuity, so where is matters, Fallmerayer isnt propagated at all. Unless he is still represented in academic circles, there's no need in raising a dead argument from the grave. Especially when most of its attention is brought in by political factors irrelevant to Wikipedia's purpose. This is equivalent to raising in the FYROM article the argument of the ancestry of modern FYROMians in relation to ancient Macedonians, simply because there is a minority that does so in disregard to an already established academic consensus (that there is no relation). Colossus 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Miskin in his original edit comment says "Quoting Fallmerayer in Greeks is like quoting Hitler in Jews." And that is precisely why Fallmerayer needs to be mentioned (not quoted). An article on the Greeks that doesn't mention Fallmerayer is as incomplete an article on the Jews that doesn't mention Anti-Semitism. The notion that an ethnic group is defined by genetics (which you could call racist or racialist as Miskin does) is of course rejected by modern scholars, but it continues to have currency both among those who deny cultural continuity and among some right-wingers who support it (the nonsense of ὅμαιμον). --Macrakis 15:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking for people who propagated Fallmerayer? Why look any further when you can directly quote Adolf Hitler? A German nationalist (just like Fallmerayer) who believed that all ancient civilisations (Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Romans etc) were ruled by an elite of German colonisers. It's stupid to mention Fallmerayer for the following reasons:

• The well-known historical facts that made him biased: Austria being against the Anglo-Russian policy against the Ottoman Empire. An independent Greek Kingdom means a weaker Ottoman Empire, which means a stronger Russian influence in Europe and therefore a weaker Austrian state. Simple first order logic that either your own biasm or imperfect knowledge of history didn't allow you to see.
• Fallmerayer's "theory" was on the independent Greek state of the time, not Greeks in general that the article is about. So unless someone thinks that all Greeks in the 19th century lived in the region of Peloponnese, the currect reference on Fallmerayer's account implies fallacies.
• Thirdly and less importantly, Fallmerayer was refuted by scholars of his own and of later times (including Austrians such), who most likely had a better and more neutral demographic knowledge of the Peloponnesian people (such as the existence of the Tsakonian language. Miskin 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Epiriots are more Greek than other Greeks because they're blonder; I regret to say that I'm not making this up I can't believe people like you are allowed to edit articles. This is the proof to why Fallmerayer's theories should stay out, because some people are still stupid enough to believe in Nazi propaganda without even realising. Your views on the Nordicism of Ancient Greece and the citing of a bunch of pseudoscholars who have mentioned it, is the verification of my claims. Read the Aristotelian essay that's called physiogmomics to refute yourself and all your sources in one day. Until then I'm reverting, and you'd better keep your nazi nordicist theories for your friends and family, not for wikipedia. Miskin 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I'm afraid you've grossly misinterpreted Septentrionalis, who was clearly quoting that nonsense as an example of nonsense. It would be appropriate to apologize to him for your insults.

Thank you; that was a summary of the point in Gage at which I stopped reading. Septentrionalis 18:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As for Fallmerayer, we all agree that he was refuted starting in his own time. This is clearly documented both in the Fallmerayer article and in the text of this article. But if the Vacalopoulos quote in Fallmerayer is correct then surely Fallmerayer needs to be mentioned in an article about the Greeks, just as Anti-Semitism, Nazism, and Hitler need to be mentioned in an article about the Jews. You mention in your edit comment that there should be an "equivalent section" for the French, English, Jews, etc. In fact many of these articles do have equivalent sections talking about the various contributions to the French, English, etc. peoples.
As for your unilateral removal of this section, this does not seem consistent with Wikipedia policy, which seeks consensus in the Talk pages before changes like this. Right now, it seems that you (Miskin) and Colossus believe this section should be removed, while Septentrionalis, Macrakis, and Sysin think it should be retained. So there is no consensus to remove.
To arrive at a consensus position, I think it would be useful to refrain from inflammatory language and to make an effort to understand others' arguments before answering them. Your points about why Fallmerayer is flawed are all fine, but irrelevant. We all agree that Fallmerayer is flawed; that's not the issue. The question is whether to mention him in the article, and if so, with what language. In response to your earlier removal, I tried to make the language clearer. I would appreciate your constructive contributions to the discussion rather than intemperate personal attacks on other editors and unilateral deletions. --Macrakis 16:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I expect that attempting to ignore Fallmerayer will have two results:

• A recurrent edit war with editors attempting to insert the theory. Some of these will be neo-Nazis, over whom I shed no tears; others will insert it in good faith because they saw it in good authority, ranking up to Wilamowitz or Nilsson, and are trying to help. Inserting the theory, and explaining why it has always been wrong, will be a service to these others and to Wikipedia.
• Some unhelpful soul (like a certain capitalized editor whom WP is probably just as well without) will write some other article enshrining the theory. It probably won't mention Fallmerayer; it may not link here. It may be that none of the six of it will see it. The best we can do is to insert the antitoxin as widely as practical, in the hope that any reader of such a crank article will encounter it.

In short, my chief objection to censoring Wikipedia is that it won't work.Septentrionalis 18:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

An apology? I don't know who said this but I hope he wasn't being serious about it. Let me repeat the entire paragraph of Pmanderson:

"Fallmerayer's theories were popular enough, less than a century ago, that they can still be found in widely read, if out-of-date, descriptions of the Greeks. Edith Hamilton may be the best known in English; there are others, including Nicholas Gage writing about Greece less than twenty years ago. (The Epiriots are more Greek than other Greeks because they're blonder; I regret to say that I'm not making this up.)"

Then someone goes to me: Miskin, I'm afraid you've grossly misinterpreted Septentrionalis, who was clearly quoting that nonsense "as an example of nonsense". And Pmanderson replies " that was a summary of the point in Gage at which I stopped reading." Pause it there for a second and answer me this: Are you pulling my leg here? What gave you the impression that I was mentally disabled enough not to be able to make my own judgement on what I read?! The first paragraph clearly that you're sucking down nazi propaganda that you're trying to spoonfeed it to us as an evidence of some sort. You initially quote those people as if they were professors in Harvard, and next thing I know you claim that you were supposedly quoting them as an example of bullshitters? If you regarded them as bullshitters then why the hell did you bring up their names in the first place? And why were you "sorry about it, but you're not making it up"? I can bring up names of "scientists" of similar reliability and then write up a section on the view of ancient Greeks being an alien race that migrated from the centre of the moon. According to your logic there has to be a section about this since it has been told and supported (and it has), otherwise you'll be using double-standard logic. I mean wtf man, you're underestimating my intelligence here. As for the consensus you know where you can stick it, if you really believe that this caricature of democracy can remotely reflect neutrality, then I'll just feel sorry for you already. Despite the very imporant fact that I have repeatedly pointed out, i.e. that Fallmerayer spoke for only the Pelopponesian Greeks who happened to be in charge of a Greek state (a minority of the entire Greek population that later formed the current Greek state), nobody of you was interested in editing the current paragraph which falsely implies that Fallmerayer was speaking for all Greeks. So not only you people have passed a POV into the article, but you have manipulated its meaning in a way that makes it sound even more wrong and insulting. Under normal circumstances I'd just make the essential compromise edits and get this thing over with, but in the view of a bunch of biased pro-nazi editors trying to be in charge of this article, I feel obliged to react and keep reverting until an administrator sorts this out. Btw I did check on other ethnic articles and there was no similar section. You get my point. I wonder how many more points will I have to make until you all realise that you're all illegal editors here. Miskin 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And just for the record, I don't give a rat's ass whether Fallmerayer was right or not. My beef is in the fact that I can't stand a bunch of apparently racist, extreme-right or even pro-nazi individuals passing POVs so easily in wiki-articles. Miskin 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this passes into personal attack; although it apparently arises from a good-faith misunderstanding. I repeat what should have been obvious: Fallmerayer's theories are nonsense; they were used by the Nazis; there is a substantial consensus against them. The question is what to do about them here. Septentrionalis 20:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, take a deep breath, please. --Macrakis 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You can keep reverting that ridiculous section and I'll keep removing it as long as it implies fallacies. This will go on until one of you gets it right. Let me give you some hints:

• 'Many Greek nationalists insist that the modern Greeks are pure unmixed descendants of the ancient Greeks.'

There's no representative group of people that claims that. In fact there's less Greek people that would claim something like that rather than modern Germans believing in the Aryan race. Furthermore that's almost as stupid as declaring "some Israeli nationalists believe that all Jews are the pure descendants of Moses".

• " The other extreme believe part of the ancient Greeks were largely displaced by other populations in large areas—Fallmerayer's discredited theory, opposed by a consensus of scholarship."

For the 88th time already, Fallmerayer's theory is about the Peloponnesean Greeks, meaning some 1/10 of the entire Greek population that formed today's Greek state. For anyone who knows the basics on Greek history, the very first Greek state was in the peninsula of Peloponnese from where it expanded to include the entire Greek peninsula and Eastern Thrace. Greece received some 2,000,000 Greek immigrants from Asia Minor and Constantinople in 1922 as a gift from Kemal Ataturk. Fallmerayer's theory do NOT concern all Greeks and have no place in an article of that title. Just stop being so thick-headed and try to objectively view how stupid and wrong your implications are. A single 18th century biased scholar can't be regarded as an opposite extreme. Neither does a bunch of neo-nazis who might support his views. I don't care whether this will start edit wars or not, if you're too bored to protect an article from vandalism then give up your account on wikipedia. Neutrality is not about being afraid of what might happen between editors, it's about providing decent and unbiased information to readers.

• "Modern ethnologists consider genetics irrelevant, but agree that there is a strong and continuous tradition linking ancient and modern Greeks linguistically and culturally over the millenia"

W.T.F. do modern ethnologists have to do with anything? Do you people believe that there's an actual group of scientists that decides what people should consider themselves? If that was the case, do you really believe that we'd have Bulgarian-speaking states using artificial nationalities such as "Macedonians"? Why the hell does no other ethnic article have such bullshit sections? It's because the Eurocentrist and nazis can't accept the fact that Greeks still exists.

• "though, of course, there have also been significant adaptions in Greek culture by other peoples."

How come the article on Ancient Greek doesn't point out that ancient Greek language and culture had adapted things from other peoples. How come no ethnic article makes such ridiculous simple-minded remarks? That's because nobody feels the need to state the obvious on human evolution. We live in the same planet and have luckily a contact with each other for the past 5000 years, what the hell does it serve to point out that one's language and culture has been influenced by other peoples?? Is there a single ethnic group on the planet which claims the opposite? I mean, I really can't understand why this article gets special treatment, and I can't understand why you people don't admit it. I won't let this bullshit POVs pass, I'm making this clear. As for you Macrakis I really have no words, I have expressed in the past my opinion on your individual and if you remember it, I'm sure you understand why I don't even bother to give you a serious answer anymore. Miskin 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, thank you for finally providing some coherent arguments for your position. Next step, stop making ridiculous assertions about people you disagree with and calling them "neo-Nazis", etc. I don't care about your opinion of me as an individual. Let's stick to the substance. More later. --Macrakis 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Source of claims

"Melbourne, Australia is the largest Greek city outside Greece according to population and is the 3rd largest Greek city in the world. There is believed to be between 300,000 to 400,000 Greeks currently living in Melbourne."

The quote above has been recently added by user 202.7.176.133 ; now, I grant there's the odd chance that the statement is true and valid, but since its such a superlative claim a verifiable source is a must. --Chinfo 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Greeks in Albania

Users Kastrioti and Matia.gr apparently disagree on the number of Greeks who have emigrated from Albania and who remain in Albania. Instead of just editing the article, could both of you please discuss this matter here on the Talk page, with appropriate references to outside sources? --Macrakis 22:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Greeks in Albania? Less than 1.5%

There never have been 300 000 Greeks in Albania. That is only the propaganda of the Greek-American lobby. Saying that 8%-10% of Albanian Orthodox are Greek is simply ridiculous. I am sure because I come from those areas of South Albania and I have shared a building with Greeks. None of them claim a minority of 200 000 or 300 000 as the Greek editors of "Greeks" say. This is first primary source information, not ERT news.

Let's say you think I'm just lying and that personal experiences don't count as facts. Well, then you should know what the American Department of State published in August 2004:

"The Greek minority in Albania makes up 1.17% of the total population of Albania."

What is there to talk about? Some Greeks are the only people in the world claiming a large minority in Albania while the rest of the countries are not objecting the info of the Department of State. This is Wikipedia and I think we all want to give the most neutral information to the public. Saying "there are 200 000 Greeks in Albania" and "150 000 left" is just a point of view.

This issue should end here. Above comment posted by User:Kastrioti.

You have been reported for violating the 3RR. Have a nice day.--Theathenae 03:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Katrioti has provided the source for his figure (and I'm assuming he's reported it correctly). Could you please provide a source for your figure? Simply reverting isn't constructive. --Macrakis 14:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)