Talk:Greeks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Section "sea"

Added new section "Sea" under culture. Please discuss if you think it should stay. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It is central to the Greek element. The details are also great. Dr.K. (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks feel free to add anything you feel is missing. Nikos allready made some great additions.Xenovatis (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. The section is already well written and covers all the basics. However I'll still try to find anything fitting enough to be included. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While the section covers a very important aspect of Greek culture, don't you think the current order of people and events mentioned is a bit messy? It jumps from a 20th century Greek poet to a 6th century explorer. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did as you suggested. Please feel free to improve it further yourself any way you see fit. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Hellene

Sounds like there’s no actual fact of how the word Hellene originated. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out David. I added a source on the etymology of Hellene (Etymonline traces it to Hellen) and the etymological information of Hellen from Wiktionary. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any WP:RS that address the etymology of Hellen either confirmiing the "bright" thesis or disproving it. Accroding to another source, Roberts, the name spread among the proto-greek speakers who conquered the Greek peninsula to differentiate themselves from the native populations.Xenovatis (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Myceneans

I just edited the opening phrase of the Myceneans section, but I have a citation problem. My source for the edit is Vermeule's Greece in the Bronze age, but I have only the Greek publication Η Ελλάς την Εποχή του Χαλκού, Αθήνα 1983. The relevant excerpt can be found in page 77 of the Greek edition: 'Το φυλετικό όνομα Μινύες πρέπει επίμονα να διακριθεί από την αρχαιολογική ετικέτα "Μινύες", που χρησιμοποιείται για τους εισβολείς, οι οποίοι φέρνουν τη μεσοελλαδική εποχή στην Ελλάδα. Μας είναι εντελώς άγνωστο πώς ονόμαζαν τους εαυτούς τους αυτοί οι νεόφερτοι. Γίνεται γενικά παραδεκτό ότι ήταν το πρώτο κύμα πραγματικών Ελλήνων που ήλθε στην Ελλάδα". If somebody has the English edition at hand, could he/she be kind enough to add the reference with the page number from the original?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the Mycenaeans. The book is not available in Google book, scholar or Amazon. If no one comes forward with the page number you can use the English ttitle and unless someone challenges the translation this should be sufficient per WP:RSUE sincce it is not a direct quote but rather a citation, i.e. the information is the same and the phrasing doesn't matter since it is not used in a quote.

Emily Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 1964, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226853543.

Xenovatis (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. There's no need to insert the english passage in the footnote. I just wrote it so that everybody can see what I had in mind. The page number is important though and it would be nice if somebody can provide this piece of information --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article is getting better in terms of factual accuracy but still needs work.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would also benefit by someone editting from a modernist and post-nationalist perspective in order for that POV to be included as well. I will try to edit away several references to greeks and change them to greek speakers.Xenovatis (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Surnames

I do believe that wrong information appeared in the surname section.

"The suffix -akis/-aki is associated with Crete and the Aegean islands, a diminutive signifying "little" and thought to derive from the time of the Turkish occupation, therefore "Theodorakis" being "little Theodore"."

The prefix "akis" (άκης) is not diminutive in surnames and does not derive from the Turkish occupation. It is similar to Maniot “Akos” and it has the meaning of "Son of" (typical patronymic) which means that "Theodorakis" (although literally means "little Theodore") it has the meaning of "Son of Theodore" ( to be more precise is the "young one of Theodore"). Surnames in “akis” are also common in Mani which never had Turkish ocupation. (According to one theory “Akis” originated from “akos” and first appeared in Mani).
I was able to find a source about the presence of Akis in Mani. In the “Μορφή και εξέλιξη των Μανιάτικων επωνύμων by Λευτέρη Αλεξάκη, Δ/ντή στο Κέντρο Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών” a passage is clear about common use of those endings which are described as patronymic. http://www.mani.org.gr/fonimanis/2001/1_2001epif_epon.htm

“Ο πυρήνας του μανιάτικου επωνύμου προέρχεται, στο μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό, όπως και σε άλλες περιοχές της Ελλάδας, από πατρώνυμο, παρωνύμιο (παρατσούκλι), επαγγελματικό ή εθνικό όνομα (πατριδωνυμικό) με την προσθήκη, συνήθως, των παραγωγικών καταλήξεων -άκης, -έας, -άκος και σπανιότατα -άρος, -ούνης (ούνιας).”

The supposed forced use of “Akis” by the Turks is an urban legend of Crete and has appeared in recent years. I don’t know if there is even a source that backs it up beside hear saying.

Unless there is objection the article should state that the ending "akis" is partronymic, used not only in Crete and that it has nothing to do with Turkish ocupation.(unless there are ofcourse source that sugest otherwise).
Seleukosa (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ammended as per suggestion. Please feel free to make any further changes yourself as per WP:BOLD. We can always discuss any issues that come up per WP:BRD. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis you are lighting fast!!!!!!!! Seleukosa (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured the article on surnames. I tryied to make it informative and not to stick to personal data and/or particular cases. I suggest to keep this format, and at the same time I encourage to re-edit this article by adding so further information (sourced) that I see many of users have and are really very interesting but not deleting the one provided. I erased the redirection of Surnames#Greece because it goes to an article where nothing is said about Greek patronymics.Periptero (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All you did was copy this article: Family_name#Greece. So I changed it back. This is just a summary page and corrected the see also links. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The article appearing in family names was in a great part provided by my reserches (both under my nickname and not). I personally consider that the new editing I have done is better for this section. Believe me, I do not want to enter in a War Editing with you, but just understand this: Family names from Greece is not the same that Family names of the Greeks. Family names in Greece should be mor abarcative, comprising foreign familynames (and those of minorities as well). Surnames of the Greeks comprises just Greek blooded family names. if an article should be edited, this would be the Family Names#Greece one (which I will do pretty soon this weekend adding Jewish-Greek familynames, Italian-Greek familynames and others which are present in GREECE, this is why the topic is familynames in GREECE). This one, which is a parta of a major (and excellent) article should point just the patronimics of we Greek people of Hellenic Blood, the "Hellenes". I think the redirection is really off-subject. Besdies, if you match the quality of both articles is no match for discussion. Humour me ! Leave me edit and you will see it is really better. When you´ll find the other edit i will perform to Familynames#Greece, you will understand.Periptero (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical Greek Architecture

Mycenean Architecture would eventually lead to the formation of Classical Greek Architecture and Hellenistic Architecture This claim seems a bit wild and the repetition of the word architecture is superfluous. Does anybody have the exact quotation from Chadwick? Be that as it may, he was a linguist and not and expert on Greek architecture. The verb "lead" can have several meanings and the suggestion about the process is not clear. Recent scholarship (Gruben, Mazarakis Ainian) suggest very different and much more complex origins for later greek architecture, but that would fall out of the article's scope. I think the sentence should be either rephrased or omited. Any objections?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ceratinly fine by me. Thanks Giorgo.Xenovatis (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

17 million

1. Counting up to Switzerland the total is 13.7 million.
2. All the other countries from the Greek Diaspora article sum to about 0.1 million
3. Including the extra 1.7 million (assuming all 3 million US citizens of Greek ancestry consider themselves Greek) gives 15.5 million.
4. This is 1.5 million short of the number 17 million quoted
5. The assumption that those of Greek ancestry in the US consider themselves Greek is not borne by the census findings.
6. Prevelakis, in the reference section, gives a figure for the Greek diaspora of somewhat below 5 million. Using that and adding the Greek population of Greece (10.2) and Cyprus (0.6) yields about the same at somewhere below 15.8 million.

• I propose the total be revised to either 15.5 or (preferably) 16 million, which is still an overestimate but significantly closer to the numbers we give. Hence WP will be internally consistent and all its numbers will agree with each other, something that is not true now. I do realize that 17 is the number usually quoted in Greece but it doesn't seem to be borne by the facts we have seen so far.Xenovatis (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see 10.2 mil (GR) + 1.3 mil (USA) + .6 (CYP) + .4 (UK) + .37 (AUS) + .32 (DE) +.22 (CAN) + 477821 (rest of them) = 13,890,747 million. Plus an additional 3 mil that claim Greek ancestry in the USA (I don't care whether or not they practice being Greek, they are still, partly or fully Greek), = 16.8 million thus the approx of 17 million. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your mistake! It is not an additional 3 million but 3 million total, so the additional figure is 3-1.3=1.7, hence the lower count.Xenovatis (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. You can't claim 1.2 million Greeks and then say that 3 million Greeks are in the US. The 1.2 is to those who select Greek as their main ethnicity, while the additional 3 million are those who maintain another ethnicity, other than Greek, and thus identify with that ethnicity, thus you get the additional 3 million who claim Greek decendents. Why state 1.2 million Greeks live in the USA, then state there are a total of 3 million Greeks in total? _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The source used for the 3m numbers states: An estimated three million Americans resident in the United States claim Greek descent. This includes everything from those claiming to be descented from the right testicle of Socrates and the left testicle of Paleologus to those who report one of their great-grandfathers was Greek, and everything in between. The discrepancy between the 3m figure and the 1.2m figure is due to not all of them identifying as Greek. In fact only 1.2m do and this really means the rest shouldn't be included at all let alone double counted like you insist on doing. Greek ancestry is different to being Greek.Xenovatis (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose, double counting? You're basing your info on some guys estimation when the numbers say otherwise. 1.2 million Greeks live in the USA, and an additional 3 million Americans claim Greek descendent's. You do the math. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are doublecounting because you are reading "additional". The source never uses that word. That's what I am trying to explain to you all this time. Read the source: An estimated three million Americans resident in the United States claim Greek descent this includes those who self-identify as Greek as well as those who don't. So the 1.2m is a subset of the 3m.Xenovatis (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno on that one. Let's find the missing million if we want to add it to the total claimed by Greece. Actually, I'm somewhat impressed Greece only claims one more million. I've seen much worse in our neighborhood. NikoSilver 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"The strength of Greeks has never been in numbers but in truth". What did I say again the homosexual!Xenovatis (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

El Greco, where do you base that it is 1.3+3.0=4.3 instead 3.0 (which includes 1.3 and another 1.7)? Have I rushed to misunderstand something? NikoSilver 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll then settle for 10.2 + .624 + 5.51 = 16.3 million. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above, the MFA site makes no mention of Greek population in Albania, estimates of which range from 60,000 (Albanian 1989 census, dubious) to 400,000 (from the "Epirot lobby", equally dubious). If we take the average, that's about 230,000. Also, there is the question of whether these figures include Greek Cypriots in the diaspora. For example, the Greek Cypriots article mentions 200,000 Greek Cypriots living in the UK, a number which I have heard frequently. Yet the MFA site lists only 212,000 Greeks in the UK, which in all likelihood does not include the Cypriots (as that would imply only 12,000 non-Cypriot Greeks). So if we add the 0.23 and 0.2 to El Greco's numbers, we get 16.7 million. Personally, I think something like 14-17 million in the infobox would be best, since that includes both the lowball and highball estimates and after all, the definition of who is a Greek is itself fuzzy. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The number 400,000 for the UK includes Greeks from Cyprus and that is the number used in the table in the article. If there is further information on the Greek diaspora from Cyprus it should also be included in the table. My main concern is that the quoted number is supported with references and agrees with the data in the table.Xenovatis (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another question. Do those number also include the Sub groups of the Greeks like the Pontics? Obviously those counted in Greece, yes, but what about elsewhere? Which is why I think a range would be better. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I should think so. There is no other documented Greek migration to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan save for that of the Pontic Greeks and a few thousand political refugees in the 50's. Equally the 128,000 stated by the MFA for Russia and the 100k for Ukraine explicitly mention them to be mostly Pontic Greeks. Actually I find it a bit offensive that the Greek MFA does not mention the Cypriot Greeks as part of the UK Greek community.Xenovatis (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So, then shouldn't that 128k and 100k be added as well to the infobox? Currently, Russia says 98k and Ukraine 92k. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means do so but make sure to add the correct citations so that numbers agree with what the sources say. Might need to doublecheck the Ukraine number btw. Actually if you can be bothered the whole table could be updated, eg the 2006 US census lists 1.35m Greeks, the Greece census is from 2001 etc.Xenovatis (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standards alert!!!: I don't care whether or not they practice being Greek, they are still, partly or fully Greek

Now, may you wish to extend this same courtesy to the Arvanite community who reside in 'Greece' (i.e. i don't care if they call them selves Albanian)??????? Realmadrid123 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Could you summarise your objections to the change please? I removed fringe books and websites - Nazis used as primary sources and crazy Christian coalition pseudohistorians, I replaced it with accurately represented quotes from the best mainstream academic sources on the subject.... Is there a problem? Can we please discuss it point by point rather than with a wholesale revert? Nobody wants a pointless edit war. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If antihellenists are worried about their bedfellows they should consider changing beds. I seem to remember your usefull contributions in the Pontic Greek Genocide talk page as well...
• The sources cited currently are not fringe since they are used to illustrate the acceptance of this position among fringe circles, i.e. they are talking about themselves and not used to substantiate or prove a point. What is fringe is presenting 19th century pseudoscience in depth and using it to prove your points as you did for Fallmerayer.
• Please provide a full quote of the academic source you had in mind and it will be discussed.
• Re the genetic origins sources will be provided. Fact-tag them in the meantime. The conclusion is obvious from the table in the article but if you wish to game the system I will oblidge you, for the moment.
• Some of the rest of your changes may be salvageable. Please provide the proposed ammendment so it is obvious exactly what you intend to add. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• And here I've never even heard of the concept "antihellenist" before. Why is it a redlink? (Joke. Please don't create it.)

I doubt fish have a word for water either.Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not my points. I quote the paramount living authority on national identity - a reliable, modern, secondary source - on the subject of Fallmerayer. I don't think that that qualifies as fringe by any definition.

You misquoted Smith presenting only those few paragraphs that support your prejudices and antihellenism. The full text of Smith's analysis must be presented and I will do so. In particular the conclusion where Smith affirms the cultural continuity of Hellenism.

• Here's the complete quote from Anthony D. Smith:

  Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not only of Byantium but also of ancient Greece and their classical Hellenic civilisation. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the nineteenth century) "descent" was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenutous, at worst non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries by massive influxes of Avar, Slav, and later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that immigrants succeeded in occupying most of Central Greek and the Peloponnese pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilisation to the East...It also meant that modern Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.

Here is the complete quote from Smith, including the parts that Relato, for some reason which I am sure is completely innocent and in good faith, somehow forgot to publish:

National Identity, Anthony D. Smith, p. 28-31

ETHNIC CHANGE, DISSOLUTION AND SURVIVALThe importance of these and other factors can also be seen when we turn to the closely related questions of how ethnies change in character, dissolve or survive. Let me start with ethnic change and with a well-known example, that of the Greeks. Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not merely of Greek Byzantium, but also of the ancient Greeks and their classical Hellenic civilization. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the early nineteenth century), ‘descent’ was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenuous, at worst non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries AD by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and, later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modem Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.’ There is a sense in which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity, now and earlier, and irrelevant. It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, fellt that their ‘Greekness’ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such filiations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ‘super-family’ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece. For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ‘Greek revival’ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage. This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years

• I actually know something about the haplotype in question since it has long been used in contentious claims related to caste articles in India. I thus know that finding an unambiguous statement will be difficult, and inappropriate. That's the reason I removed it, not to "game the system."

Nonetheless here it is [1] Currently tracking the original research paper which will be included as well. The claims however are sourced in a WP:RS and by statements from one of the academics involved in the study.Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it.

Ornella Semino et.al, Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of y-chromosome haplogroups e and j: inferences on the neolithization of europe and later migratory events in the mediterranean area, American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004 May, 74, 5 p.p. 1023-34

The phylogeography of Y-chromosome haplogroups E (Hg E) and J (Hg J) was investigated in >2,400 subjects from 29 populations, mainly from Europe and the Mediterranean area but also from Africa and Asia. The observed 501 Hg E and 445 Hg J samples were subtyped using 36 binary markers and eight microsatellite loci. Spatial patterns reveal that (1) the two sister clades, J-M267 and J-M172, are distributed differentially within the Near East, North Africa, and Europe; (2) J-M267 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people; (3) E-M81 is typical of Berbers, and its presence in Iberia and Sicily is due to recent gene flow from North Africa; (4) J-M172(xM12) distribution is consistent with a Levantine/Anatolian dispersal route to southeastern Europe and may reflect the spread of Anatolian farmers; and (5) E-M78 (for which microsatellite data suggest an eastern African origin) and, to a lesser extent, J-M12(M102) lineages would trace the subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans to the west. A 7%-22% contribution of Y chromosomes from Greece to southern Italy was estimated by admixture analysis.

Xenovatis (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And here for the abstractXenovatis (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I rather think all my changes, which were carefully designed, are "salvageable".

Best not to assume I'm here because I want to ruin the article, OK? Collegiality is a good thing. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: thanks to User:Kekrops for correctly modifying my wording. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. All these can only be opinions, ultimately. Smith says the dearth of demographic evidence is "unfortunate" for the "classicist Hellenic myth", but it is equally unfortunate for the opposing myth. So the "original" Greeks were pushed to the Aegean islands and the undefined "coastal areas", presumably referring to Asia Minor. Where are these Greeks now, if not in Greece? The argument is as flawed as it is simplistic, as if the only Greeks on the planet were the Arvanites Fallmerayer happened to meet in the tiny "Greece" of the time. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That banker (it rhymes) Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer never even set foot in Greece, before the book in question was published. He wrote his book in Constantinople where the Ottoman Sultan honored him with a firman for his scholarship[2]. I kidd you not people, you just can't make this stuff up...Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... sorry for being the σπαστικος in this case, but Fallmerayer actually visited Greece in 1833 and even met with Kyriakos Pittakis, one of the pioneers of Greek Archaeology. This meeting started a nasty controversy involving the so called Αναργύρεια Αποσπάσματα which were later discredited as forgeries. Fallmerayers most important contribution was the History of Trebizond which is considered a classic, but other than that his work on Morea was largely rejected by both 19th and 20th century scholars. I am frankly amazed by the fact that Smith, who in generalis very reliable, chose Fallmerayer as a source. Sorry Xenovatis but Φίλος μεν Πλάτων, φιλτάτη η αλήθεια--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Anthony D. Smith is indeed a highly respectable scientist, but... this does not mean that he is right on Fallmerayer. Fallmerayer made indeed some very important contributions on the medieval history of Greece and was indeed right in many points. Since his time more than a century of scholarship has passed and the historiography of medieval Greece is now a completely different landscape. Quoting Fallmerayer as a prime source for the history of Medieval Greece is just like quoting Gibbon for the history of the Roman Empire and ignoring 140 years of scientific research. As for his controversial status as a historian I can give (for now) only one source W. R. Loader, in Greeks Ancient and Modern, Greece & Rome, Vol. 18, No. 54 (Oct., 1949), p. 121, Published by the Cambridge University Press states:

During the recent German occupation of Greece the occupying authority published a number of brochures in which it was argued that the modern Greeks have nothing whatever in common with the ancient Greeks. These brochures were circulated among German troops with the object of stifling any sympathy or admiration which the ordinary soldier might feel for the present-day Greeks as descendants of the ancient Athenians and Spartans. [...] In part, this propaganda was a revival of Fallmerayer's theory that the Greeks, as a race, vanished in the Middle Ages, their blood being at first diluted and then swamped by that of Slav invaders".

I can't provide further sources for the time being, but if need be, I will look it up so as to dissolve any doubts concerning the controversial nature of Fallmerayer's thesis.Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points.

• Fallmerayer is mentioned because of his importance to the development of the historiography of the Greek nation, not quoted as a genuine source.

I retained your description of F's thesis.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but his contorversial nature is not at all supported by the orginal quote: "As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago..." which implies a wholesale adaptation of Fallmerayer's thesis as a "genuine" source and is contrary to modern scholarship (Charanis, Vryonis, Vasilief, and I believe also Laiou, Ostrogorsky). By the way Smith is not a Byzantinist--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• That he is 'controversial', I think emerges from the description of the reaction that Paparrigopoulos spearheaded. (Can we call them P and F now? Takes too much time otherwise.)

OKXenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That F was used by the Nazis, and still is by white power types, is really not that useful to a main article.

I rather think it is. F was not motivated by a love of science nor are most of those who quote him today. F wanted to stem Euro support for Greece in order to help build up the Ottomans as a bulwark against Slavic expansion.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is important to distinguish between those parts of F's thesis that appear generally contested and those that are not. Few historians appear to contest his statements re historical evidence of ethnic continuity, which is what Smith picks up on above. What has been generally discredited is his assumption that national continuity depends on ethnic continuity which is, after all, precisely 19th c racial thinking.

Agreed there. Please ammend as appropriate.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point. Fallmerayer claimed that the greek speaking population was utterly supplanted in all of the Morea and most of mainland Greece by the new-comers. This idea of a wholesale dissapearance of the greek speakers is not contested by few, but by most.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That, for example, is what Constantinos Dimaras focused on. The question of Greek national continuity remains open internationally, but settled domestically. (Interesting passages on history textbooks in Greece I cam across which I will provide if anyone's interested.)

Please do. International opinion is irrelevant since foreigners only learnt about the ancients from Greeks in the first place and only a few centuries ago at that.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the section is to be changed, it needs to be expanded to focus on the paralysing question of late 19th c domestic Greek nationhood: the place of the Byzantines. The question of whether the ethnos was Greek or Greco-Christian is what people were quarreling over, and P himself moved from Athens to Byzantium over the course of his life. Like a belief in national continuity today has political causes and consequences, so also did in that period the course of that imagined continuity - Orthodox or Democratic? (There is also a fascinating subtext through the 1960s of Marxist infighting about the nature of Greek nationhood in the late Roman era, with Greek Marxists rejecting 'bourgeois' national continuity and Moscow's 'Slavophile' theses alike.)

That's a good point. If you want to condence it to one or two para's it could be included. Preferably one though as the section has already expanded appreciably.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That explains why you're responding as you are to the quote above. Perhaps I will locate something that demonstrates that the lack of evidence of ethnic continuity does not rule out or in the possibility of national continuity.

Not but let's see about explaining your stance. Since the 15th century, when they found out about the classics by some non-descript people (they called them Greeks if you are interested) Westerners have constructed their identity by appropriating the Greek and Roman heritage for themselves and to do that you needed to discredit the actual Greeks and Romans. It became necessary for the Westerners to prove that Greeks are not really Greek or Roman so that they could then emerge as the only legitimate heirs to the classical tradition. Medieval Westerners declined to call the Byzantine Greeks Romans and called them Greeks instead because they were interested in appropriating the Roman heritage for themselves. Modern Westerners are more interested in appropriating the Greek heritage but they follow the same old tricks. Incidentally the rationale is the same as that employed by the Christian churches who need to discredit the Jews in order to emerge as the true interpreters and legatees of scriptural promises, replacement theology. In short this is the same old tale in different guise. You will forgive me then if I don't sound too impressed by your psychobubble.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, while I was writing this Xenovatis posted above. Well, I hope I've made it clearer. Again, remember to avoid being snide about good faith. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A few more notes on Xenovatis' revision: there's still the Nazi nonsense in there, which I see no reason for, frankly. Also, the claim of "cultural continuity" being focused on as far back as the 12th c is misleading; it became central only in the 19th c. Finally to claim that it is uncontested is difficult: cultural continuity is not the same as a sense of nationhood, either, and it is the latter that is uncontested, as seen in the above Smith quote. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not disagree with most of your comments above. Indeed cultural continuity has nothing to do with national or even worse ethnic(see racial) continuity. Your original quotation was quite short though and the way it was chopped seemed to sanctify Fallmerayer's research, which is far from doing justice neither to his motives nor to his views. As for your remark "That explains why you're responding as you are to the quote above" think twice and try to "avoid being snide about" what others think or have been taught. We are not pretending to be the super-direct-offspring of ancient Greeks in here. So there is no need for vexation--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And yes. Most of your points about the "continuity" discussion should be included in the article--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• As far as the Nazi refs go they are usefull because they highlght that the Western stance on the issue is not inherently neutral nor shaped by academic concerns alone, as it is presented. Indeed one could describe the preponderance of very white and indeed very blonde and blue eyed people in Hollywood movies and other Western representations of Ancient Greece as being as revealing as it is unhistorical. Same goes, alot more in fact, for the paleo-conservatives.
• When Britannice discussed the modern Greek identity it traces it to the twelfth century. I don't disagree on the impact of Romantic nationalism and I have mentioned it in the article. These ideas did indeed spread widely only in the 19th century after the Neohellenic Enlightenment so qualifying it that way would be OK.
• I will rephrase the sentence from Smith then.Xenovatis (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I had already asked 3dAlcove to check the article for nationalism and Relata Refero's presence here has been very helpfull in that respect. I think the Modern vs Ancient section could do with a lot of improvement and would like to see ideally a synthesis of Relata's views. While the section has allready expanded the issue will be contested in any reviews and it needs to be thorougly explored and non-Greek POV's included.Xenovatis (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

About modern and ancient Greeks. There is no need to write every theory historians with a political agenda are trying to promote. Who cares. Just mention if there is a genetical connection between the two and add the sources of geneticist and anthorpologists. That's enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianatomia (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cypriots in canada

i just wanted to state that although the footnotes states that 'an additional 3,395 Cypriots live in Canada... not clear whether they are Greek or Turkish'- the statistics that i have found are actually higher (4,285)- refrence: Talat S. Halman in Stephen Thernstrom, ed., Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 992–96 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthonly (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources has a collumn for other declarations of ethnicity. Of those Cypriots 2,600 have declared another ethnicity as well (either Greek or Turkish it doesn't say) and only 800 have declared themselves to be just Cypriots. I will guess that these 800 are Greek since the raison d'etre of Turkish Cypriots was always to distance themselves from Cyprus and if possible to seccede, which they forced with their invasion and ethnic cleansing. So the Canada number would only differ by +800 at most. I don't really think this is equivalent to stating that an extra 1.7m US citizens are of Greek descent and this qualification would have to be included as well which would be too much detail for an infobox. There are important sections of the article that need a lot of improvement. Let's concentrate on those instead. Best.Xenovatis (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not clearly stated what ethnicity, Greek or Turkish, they belong. Second, are you to tell me for the sake of space we're not going to include people? I find that harsh, regardless of how large or small the size is. It only takes up one extra line in the template. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[3]

Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported 'English and Scottish' would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish.

Again you are confusing additional. If you read the source the additional number is 830. My proposal would be to add this to the total and change the footnote to "An additional 830 Cypriots live in Canada" since any Cypriots who simply declare themselves as Cypriots are going to be Greeks.Xenovatis (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is that suppose to mean? any Cypriots who simply declare themselves as Cypriots are going to be Greeks What, there are no Turkish Cypriots? No Greco-Turkish Cypriots? Come on. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the additional only refers to 830 people not the 3000 you wrongly insist on. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of "additional", you made the same error in the previous discussion.Xenovatis (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, you include the larger number, 3395. 830 Cypriots may be of one ethnicity but 2565 include those that claim more than one ethnicity. Since it's unable to determine which you include the 3395 in the article. You have trouble in understanding that. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

the article is well cited, factual, well structured and neutral. also it is broad in its coverage. I will pass this article gladly. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes by PMCosovski

If editors want to alter numbers cited in sourced they need to ensure they can read English first the source on France for example was changed from 35,000 to 15,000 when the MFA data cites 15,000 and another 20,000 in the South. Clearly this is wrong. I will be reverting these edits.Xenovatis (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you translate the data from the french government it states,

Greek Community in France:15 000 (9th rank in the World), now the www.diplomatie.gouv.fr is source on many wiki pages in terms of the ethnic groups. Just beacuase you do not like the number does not mean it is wrong.

The Number of Greeks in italy is not 30,000 but rather 6831 as is stated in the official government figures.

Another reversion! the swedish census counted 10,749 but once again you have inflated the figures to 14,000 for the foreign ministry figures!

How can there be 15,000 greeks in serbia, when the lowest recorded ethnic group was at 2210????

Serbia : http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf Sweden: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0101_2005A01_BR_BE0106TAB.pdf France : http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/grece_187/presentation-grece_1362/donnees-generales_831.html Italy  :http://demo.istat.it/str2006/

Why is it that the official figures are not accepted??/ PMK1 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All the data is sourced from the competent source, the Greek MFA and includes both Greek nationals (i.e. people coming from Greece) and Diaspora Greeks who are not nationals of Greece like Cypriots and Greeks whose ancestors were never citizens of Greece like Pontians, Alexandrians, Calabrians etc. I am not surprised you missed that point, since unlike some others, Greeks are not a constructed nation dependent on their political nationality for their identity. This is the cause of the discrepancy in the Italy figures and the MFA takes that into account. The only useful source is the one for Serbia since the MFA does not state any figures in this case and the figure comes from a newspaper. I will be ammending that. The rest are all sourced. Sorry if the sourced information is not to your liking.Xenovatis (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sources and referenced statements is vandalism and hence was reverted. If you want to include the data you first have to understand it. The censi reference people from Greece not Greeks in general. The MFA refers to Greeks in general so the figure is obviously larger. If you check the numbers for Canada for example only 60% of ethnic Greeks there hail from Greece About 90,000 also declare another identity so come mainly from the Diaspora and some from Cyprus.Xenovatis (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, I think it may be wise to stick to the census data where it's available. The Greek Foreign Ministry's estimates can go at the page Greek diaspora (where min-max ranges of the available estimates can be used). I also think that there should be a maximum number of countries in the infobox here, possibly 15 or 20. The infobox is intended just to give a brief overview of the undisputed situation, the main article for the Greek population worldwide is Greek diaspora (I've been meaning to update that article for a long time). I understand it's just citizenship, but don't think it makes much difference; it's still the minimum number and will definitely cover those with a firm national identity.--Dexippus (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was to avoid exactly that a min-max range, since it would be usightly. Otherwise I agree. Cossovski can re-enter the census data, but Serbia should not be included and they need to be in descending order by number and alphabetically. There are now 22 countries, I don't see an issue with shortening it to 20 or 15. I only added a few more to bring it to equal length with the end of the CS. BTW I would be willing to work on the Greek diaspora article and making some of the articles for the Greek communities in other countries that are currently redlinked. I suggest some collaboration in this, we could split the countries etc. I have allready created the five that were redlinked in the Greeks banner. What say you?Xenovatis (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With the Greek diaspora article I was thinking of basing it on the Foreign Ministry's page, using their data as a starting point and dividing the tables by continent. This has the added benefit that it'd be easier to maintain them in proper order (descending by number) after we've added the official census data to the ranges. Census data is usually lower than the MFA's figures, so the order would be determined by them as it currently is.--Dexippus (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, I 'd prefer to see where the larger communities are at the top. Let's get started tommorow and we'll see.Xenovatis (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable, put the official census figures (where available) on this page Greeks and seeing as you plan on revamping the Greek Diaspora page. You can create a column -Official Statistics and another column -Other Estimates (which would include the MFA estimates. Also with the MFA their figures are generally inflated when compared to census results so if you base the figures on the MFA estimates their is serious flaws. As well you have said that the figures take into account the 'diaspora' when many countries like france, sweden, italy, serbia are different to countries like georgia, russia and turkey. Where their actually is the old diaspora. I believe that having the firm census results is less diputable than estimates from a pro-greek source. For now is it OK if we first add the censused and official figures, and after that list is exhausted we can add the references from the hellenic foreign ministry? PMK1 (talk)06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The additions are a mess. You left out Sweden and Kazakhstan both of which have census data in excess of 10,000. It should stay to only those countries with community larger than 30,000. And South Africa isn't on the list.Xenovatis (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i didnt have enough time to add SW and kazahkstan. Will you accept 10,000 as a benchmark, or will continue using estimates??? PMK1 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

30,000 is fine for a threshold.Xenovatis (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough PMK1 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Remarks

Per Xenovatis' kind request, I offer a detailed peer-review:

General

• Make use of the templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite book, Template:cite encyclopedia and Template:cite news.
• IMO "References" and "Further reading" should not be mixed. After all you true "references" are your "notes", where you include all the data of the books you use, without having a separate "References" section.
• The "See also" section should be trimmed. Do not put there articles already linked within the text.
• The article certainly needs copyediting. But the content and the layout should be first improved and finalized. Then, the prose will come, and I can invite some of the best copy-editors to come to the article and give it a shot.

The lead

• In citation 19 there is no page.
• In citation 20 Encarta is not a verifiable source per WP:VERIFY. I cite from Britannica: "Except in Cyprus, southern Albania, and Turkey, there are no major enclaves of Greeks in nearby countries, although Greek expatriate communities play a distinctive role in western Europe, North and South America, and Australia." What do you think?
• Another expert from Britannica which could be used in the lead: "The inherent instability of the Balkan Peninsula—located as it is at the crossroads of invading Turks, migrating Slavs, and colonizing powers from western or central Europe (Venetians, Austro-Hungarians)—has bequeathed a bewildering amount of cultural confusion to Greece. Even in the south or on the islands, centuries of population migration and forced population exchanges continued well into the 20th century."

Infobox

• CIA Factbook say Greek Orthodox 98% and Muslims 1,3%, but It also says Greeks 93%, "others" (?!) 7%. Is this consistent?

History

• Maybe the "History" section could be a bit shorter, since there is already the History of Greece article, but again this may just be a personal preference. And "Modern" is disproportionally small compared to the other sections, and it seems to me that the two paragraphs of the sections have more to do with minorities that with history.
• "When Alexander the Great's armies overthrew the Persian Empire and spread Greek culture from the Adriatic to the Indian Ocean they were laying the foundations for a new era." Verbalism IMO.
• Citation 37 has no page.
• Why heading "Roman" for the Byzantine period?!
• Page in citation 43?
• In citation 47 we have the quote, but the page?
• Page in citation 53?
• Page in citation 22?
• Almost nothing in "Modern" about the populations' exchange. You just repeat what you say in the lead. Isn't any analysis needed?

Identity

• "While Byzantine Greeks called themselves Rhomioi, they valued the classical tradition, considered themselves the political heirs of Rome". I have read that more than one in several sections. I think it gets a bit repetitive.
• We do not wikilink centuries. Only full dates.
• Edit properly citation 76, using the Template:cite news.
• Fix properly citations 79, 80, 81 and 82, using Template:cite journal.
• "Recent genetic analyses of Greek populations have provided evidence of statistically significant continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (low admixture attributed to genetic isolation due to physical barriers)" I am not sure if this sentence should be where it is now or in the beginning of the next section where the "altera pars" is presented, and both points of view should be treated.
• Sometimes you write nineteenth of eleventh century and some others 19th and 11th. Be consistent.
• "however, modern scholarly opinion tends to see both Fallmerayer and Paparrigopoulos as taking positions influenced by and intelligible only within the political and intellectual decline of Western philhellenism." I don't understand what exactly you mean here.
• "Fallmerayer's controversial (some say racist)[87][86] views were later incorporated in Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg's Der Mythus des 20es Jahrhunderts and found adherents in the Third Reich who echoed them in their writings.[88][89][90] They were also actively promoted by the Axis occupation authorities in Greece who hoped to extinguish any sympathy their troops might feel for the Greeks." This may be accurate, but there is also another side; I quote from the Battle of Greece article: " Joseph Goebbels, who was an admirer of Greek antiquity (in his diaries describes how the dream of his youth came true, when he first visited Greece[141]), and believed that Metaxas intended to keep Greece on a neutral course,[142] corroborates in his diaries the fact that Hitler was well disposed towards Greece and its people."
• Page for citation 84? Do you cite any of these "authors in the West"?
• In citation 94 you use a primary source. I think a secondary one would be better here. In any case, I think a neutral reader would get the impression that the third paragraph of "Modern and ancient" gets slightly POV.

Demographics

• "Today Greeks are the majority ethnic group in the Hellenic Republic[1] where they constitute 93% of that country's population" What is the rest 7%? Are we counting residents or citizens?
• "After the ethnic cleansing[98][99][100] of a third of the Greek population of the island in 1974". I would edit "After the Turkish invasion of Cyprus ... "
• Doesn't deserve the Greek minority of South Albania a specific reference in "Demographics"? It is absent throughout the article!

Diaspora

• Citations 105-106 have no pages.

Religion

• "The main heterodox denominations in the Greek world are Greek Jews, Greek Catholics, Greek Muslims, Greek Evangelicals and other Protestant groups." Hmmmm .... Some numbers or percentages here would help. For instance, it is not logical to specify that "About 2,000 people are members of Hellenic Polytheistic congregations", and to say nothing about the Greek muslims.

Art

• Citations 122 and 124 are uncited.
• "Byzantine art is one of the most striking features of that civilization." You refer to which civilization exactly?

Science

• "The Greeks of the Classical era made several notable contributions to science and helped lay the foundations of modern scientific principles." Such as? Vague IMO as it is now.
• "The Greek world has a long tradition of valuing and investing in padeia (education)." Well, I am sorry to say that, but the current budgets of the modern Greek state and the relevant funds devoted to education do not exactly support this view. In any case, again this sentence is IMO verbalism.

Symbols

• "The most widely used symbol used by Greeks is the flag of Greece" Rephrase.
• Page for citation 131?

Surnames

• Citations 133 and 135 have no pages.

Sea

• "In later times the Rhomioi. Do not overwikilink. Once a word is wikilinked, it is ok. Page for citation 137 and 139?

Timeline

• Provide pages for citations 143, 144 and 145.

End for now! I am sure that with a clearer mind I will have more ideas. I said almost nothing about the structure, but I'll come back! If you are interested now or later we can have more feedback by other editors for the article. You can also check some other FA article of the kind, such as Tamil people to get some ideas.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Could you please explain more clearly what is the problem with Encarta?--Dexippus (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We can easily remove that citation and replace it with the one Yiannis provided. I found this about Encarta: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yianni, thank you very much for your suggestions. I will be implementing them presently and they should be up within the next few days. Thanks again.Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A small footnote. The number of Greeks in Albania is taken from the 1989 census, which is both quite dated and of dubious veracity. The CIA World Factbook, gives a number of 3% (so ~120,000). Since it is a better source than the 1989 census, I making that change. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

new population according to 2008 census

population should be updated according to 2008 census, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/gr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.186.55 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Offspring missing in population count

The population count is inaccurate. It is missing the offspring of native Greeks. It is not listing children of Greek origin with both parents being Greek. This is specially notable in Australia, where was claimed in the olympic games of Athens 2004 that the Greek population together with offspring surpassed 1 000 000 people. --87.219.84.207 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) ?

This video [4] is from a greek journalist TV show. Quite a lot of Greeks from FYROM appear there. Two of them actually claim that 200,000 people of greek national identity reside in FYROM.

Even though 200,000 is a quite large figure , there are certain facts that prove that there are people of greek national identity/greek heritage residing in FYROM :

1)There was never a population exchange between Serbia or later Yugoslavia and Greece.

2)Bitola (Μοναστήρι in Greek) was a city with a thriving greek population at the onset of the balkan wars. In fact, the greek king , who was leading the army , wanted to push towards Bitola to 'liberate it' rather than pushing towards Thessaloniki. Benizelos insisted on pushing towards thessaloniki , and serbia occupied Bitola instead.

3)Many civil war communist partisans from the greek civil war fled to Yugoslavia when the 'official' greek army defeated them.

4)Many vlachs reside in FYROM. Quite a lot of vlachs claim to be greek , and the majority of the greek minority of albania are actually vlachs - which means thats some of the vlachs in FYROM could be considered greek.

5)The Republic of Macedonia does not conduct censuses normally , making its minorities look smaller or even making them non-existant (Can't blame them though , minorities are a sensible matter in the balkans).

6)Even if you consider these facts invalid , at least 2,000 greek buisnessmen have moved to FYROM to take advantage of the low wages paid there.

I think that more 'expert' members should look into the subject.

PS. Since I dont want to take a position on the macedonian naming dispute , i use both Republic of Macedonia and FYROM :P

Powerstream (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please look on FYROM articel Greeks, what are they doing there! There is vandalism and they nothing do there!!--213.151.217.130 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading claims etc

There are several things that stand out as, let's say, misleading:

1. (Not related to the "old greeks) "views were later incorporated in Nazi theoretician" first I find this as a sneaky way to automatically discredit the theory. The fact that is was mentioned by Hitler does not mean it's wrong. The Nazis are mentioned twice too. Please rewrite it. Many phillohellenes were surprised at what they saw, it wasn't just him.

2.

While the majority of Greeks today are descended from Greek speaking Rhomioi (how do you know???) Modern scholars and scientists have supported the notion that there is a racial connection to the ancient Greeks Recent genetic analyses of Greek populations have provided evidence of statistically significant continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (low admixture attributed to genetic isolation due to physical barriers).

Please cite the paragraph where it states this, this is very vague, and I am having a hard time locating it. Also, Greeks and Albanians are almost identical in DNA. What does that mean for this continuity? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1155/F3 Also not only slavs were mentioned: Albanians and Vlachs were mentioned too. http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/arvanites.html

The first Christian Albanian migrations to what is today Greek territory took place as early as the XI-XII centuries (Trudgill, 1975:5; Banfi, 1994:19), although the main ones most often mentioned in the bibliography happened in the XIV-XV centuries, when Albanians were invited to settle in depopulated areas by their Byzantine, Catalan or Florentine rulers (Tsitsipis, 1994:1; Trudgill, 1975:5; Nakratzas, 1992:20-24 & 78-90; Banfi, 1994:19). According to some authors, they were also fleeing forced Islamization by the Turks in what is today Albania (Katsanis, 1994:1). So, some have estimated that, when the Ottomans conquered the whole Greek territory in the XV century, some 45% of it was populated by Albanians (Trudgill, 1975:6). Another wave of Muslim Albanian migrations took place during the Ottoman period, mainly in the XVIII century (Trudgill, 1975:6; Banfi, 1994:19). All these Albanians are the ancestors of modern-day Arvanites in Central and Southern Greece.

3. "The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is their language, which has a documented tradition from at least the 14th century BC to the present day, albeit with a break during the Greek Dark Ages."

How obvious? Wasn't Greek language written down so it's hard to lose it? How long of a break? The word "obvious" is too strong as Europeans spoke Greek too.

Please fix these, as this is an encyclopedia and words matter.

--Keep it Fake (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You're absolutely right about the "Nazis", though the stuff about the -romantic- philhellenes is irrelevant, as well. The section shouldn't really exist in the first place.

2.Greeks and Albanians (at least their language points to their being native, despite the uncertainty about which Paleobalkan language it might descend from) are -mostly- descendants of a mix of paleolithic and neolithic populations. I wouldn't think it's weird that they are closely related wrt genetics. I agree that the "citation needed" tag re the Greek speakers should stay until the sentence is sourced.

3. Around 300 years or so (1100 - 800 BC; though I believe that one object with writing has been dated to the Greek Dark Ages. it's irrelevant anyway, the state of complete illiteracy stands, ie opposed to the minimal of Mycenaean times). Actually, isn't the article itself linked in this one? The Europeans "spoke Greek" as a mother tongue? This point is in conjuction with the previous, of course (ie "majority of Greek speakers") which will need a citation as mentioned above. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's no accident that the nazis chose to revive Fallmerayer's theory. It suited perfectly their blood and soil mysticism especially when he was writing staff like: "The race of the Hellenes has been wiped out in Europe. Physical beauty intellectual brilliance, innate harmony and simplicity, art, competition, city, village, the splendour of column and temple — indeed, even the name has disappeared from the surface of the Greek continent.... Not the slightest drop of undiluted Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Christian population of present-day Greece" Compare now with these ever so "precious highlights: "Blood mixture and the resultant drop in the racial level is the sole cause of the dying out of old cultures; for men do not perish as a result of lost wars, but by the loss of that force of resistance which is contained only in pure blood" or "All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning", if this still doesn't ring a bell than you'd better have a closer look to this beauty1 Fallmerayer expressed 19th century racialism in its purest form and the fact that his writings were used by nazi theoreticians is indeed no coincidence. In Fallmerayer and other racialist scholars of the 19th century (see De Gobineau for example who was convinced about the Greek continuity but was no less of a racialist theorist himself) one can actually find the seeds of many later theories espoused by nazi and fascist ideologies. The whole reference is indicative of a certain (racialist) undercurrent in a part of West-European thought and is also quite illustrative of the stances some intellectuals adopted towards Greeks and the notion of greekness. The scientific merits of his work on the Morea and Attica are actually considered minimal (for God's sake he was convinced that Athens was abandoned and totally depopulated for 300 years!) and his theories have been discredited already in the 19th century by his fellow historians (see the relevant article in Wikipedia). His motives have been severely criticised as not being strictly scientific. If you ask me this whole section about modern and ancient Greeks is altogether redundant but that's a different story. If one is interested in the discontinuity theory there's no need to search for it in the 19th century. One should better consult Mango or Jenkins who are also proponents of (partial) discontinuity and they actually reflect contemporary scholarship. It goes without saying that their theories have also been criticised and that there is no black and white answer in the continuity-discontinuity debate--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm actually not sure if specifically "genetic/demic" continuity is worthy of inclusion anyway (outside its historical context, at least). Discussion of cultural etc. continuity on the other hand would be a much better and completely relevant subject. Now, who feels like taking up that task? ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would do it most gladly but I am lately contemplating to leave the project altogether. If you decide to undertake it (and it is no easy task mind you) I would be more than happy to help with sources or suggestions. A section on the perception of Hellenism on the part of western scholarship would also be interesting. I think that it is hightime somebody discussed the inherent cultural bias (orientalism, byzantinism, philhellenism, balkanism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racialism etc.) that has shaped (or even plagued) western european attitudes towards Greeks (and many other ethnic groups around the world). Similar sections should also be included in other articles about ethnic groups (especially ethnic groups of the Arab world, the Balkans, Africa etc.) but again that's probably a different story. PS. Did you by any chance read the articles I sent you the other day? I would appreciate some feedback whenever you fidn the time--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a genetic continuity between modern and ancient Greeks. Slavs in Greece and Morea were since 6-9 th century AD. During 7th and 8th century were Slavs resettled by byzantine emperors from Greece and Morea to Anatolia. To Greece came Greeks from southern Italy, Macedonia, Anatolia and Cyprus. Slavs who stayed were hellenized, but they were hellenized with greek mayority. In Macedonia were Slavs still! In 13-15 century to Greece came Arvanites (Albanians, or albanized Greeks from Albania) and came to Attica and some parts of Morea, where they albanized the greek population. From these historical facts we can say that the mayority of modern Greek population is from ancient greek people, who in medieval times were settled to mainland Greece, or who were there since ancient, or of course modern anatolian Greeks, who have been separate from massive slavic migration. It provided recent DNA analyse of modern Greeks. Modern Greeks are ancient Greeks, mixed with Slavs and Arvanites. Fallmerayer made this his hypoteze from cronic from Monemvasia, second part, where are the situations about slavic settlers in Morea, in 6th century. Its true, but we dont know how lot from it its true. But the 3rd book of this monemvasia provide that Greece were recolonizate by Greeks from east, and other greek lands!\

Pal, I have the impression, and forgive me if I am wrong (and my intention is not to offend you) that you are a bit out of our time. In modern scholarchip and research nobody cares much about "DNA analyses". Because this is not the issue. And I do not think that anybody really cares to prove any "genetic" continuity between ancient and modern Greece. There is a shift of emphasis nowadays. That simple!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello, i just red about this DNA analyse of Grece and there they wrote (italians) that in modern Greek DNA there is a ancient DNA what had ancient Greeks, and than a lot of people in Greece are from ancient Greeks, with admixture of course. And other what i wrote is based of historical documents, chronics and books. --213.151.217.129 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it would be interesting to compare this "ancient Greek DNA" with the DNA of other Balkan people as well. Anyway, I repeat that IMO this is a wrong emphasis for this article. In Paparrigopoulos and Fallmerayer time such discussions about what are genetically the modern Greeks had a specific interest. Nowadays, we've gone beyond that, trying to adopt a broader prespective, which should be reflected in this article. Me as a modern Greek, I honestly tell you that I have no interest at all in learning if I have ancient Greek blood in my body. But I do care to know about the analyses of modern scholarship treating the ancient-modern Greek and Greek-other nations cultural, anthropological, sociological diachronical relations, exchanges etc.

Giorgos made some very interesting proposals above, indicating the right direction we should adopt treating the topic "Greeks". I'd like to see these proposals implemented and his valuable material incorporated in this article. Unfotunately Giorgos has no time and Xenovatis is no more active, as I can see; the latter had initiated an effort to upgrade the article, which has a long way to go. Personally, I'm willing to help imroving the article, and initiate a thorough rewriting, although I also have my time constraints, provided I have the guidance and the assistance of Giorgos and the active and critical approaches and contributions of all the other users interested in the article. The direction of this rewriting should be, however, based on Giorgos' remarks and the modern prespective about "Greeks". For example, as I correctly read above, why focusing on Fallmerayer, when we have modern scholarship leaning towards the same direction? Let's make this article trully encyclopedic and modern, going beyond the traditional ethnocentric approaches.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Look im Greek too and im historic and thats why im interesting where im from and from where came my nation. I cant tell you how different is other balkan DNA with greek, because im not expert on it, i just red that italian dna analyse of Greeks provided genetic continuity, thats all. The element from Fallmerayer theory was right, but he saw just age of slavic invasion in Greece and he didnt see what was next and that from 7-20 century came to Greece a lot of Greeks from Anatolia, or in byzantine period from other parts of empire. Thats why is impossibile that modern Greek dont have nothing to do with ancient Hellenes. --213.151.217.138 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again I'm afraid you're missing my point. We don't have to care if we have "anything to do" with ancient Greeks or not. It is the wrong question. At least genetically! Do you want to know where you came from? Listen to the language you speak; see the ancient Greeks' monuments; dance the songs of our nations; look beyond your borders and think about the cultural etc. exchanges with our neighbors. This is who you are! And my advice: Leave the genes alone! They are not going to help you answer this particular question of yours!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• And create a proper userpage!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understanf your point i like greek cuklture, modern and ancient and byzantine i understand what about are you talking and you are right and i know it too! But its too important to know who are you and if we didnt ahve interest about it we now dont have idea about history and where from were Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians, Etruscs... Yes all in Greece are now Greeks you are right Greeks now Arvanites, Aromanians, Slavomacedonians and Romaioi (Greeks), its important our hellenism but our history too!--213.151.217.130 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you half-Slovakian, anyway? ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Im Greek but im living in Slovakia.--213.151.217.129 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Significant Greek community in Kazakhstan

According to census data, there are over 12,000 (Pontic) Greeks in Kazakhstan. This is more than some of the figures listed in the infobox. I think the size of the Greek community in this country deserves to be listed in that infobox.

Kazakh Census: http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Mes/pdf/51_cap1_2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I added 2 sections to the infobox because they represented significant populations (atleast equal to or greater than some of the populations than already listed), including the estimated 30,000 Greeks in Italy and the 12,000 or so Pontic Greeks in Kazakhstan. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

The levels of the R1a1 haplotype, associated by some with Slavic migrations,[76] have been found to be less than 12% (by way of comparison the relevant percentage for Syria is 10% and Poland 60%).[77] This confirms other studies that disprove the thesis that the Greeks have mingled substantially with Slavic people.[78][79]

This is not quite correct. Whilst Slavs do, on average, have higher levels of R1a, it does not mean that R1a is marker of Slavic genetic origins. The Slavs of 600s were not a mono-genetic people. More accurately, R1a was introduced to the Balkans during the post-glacial migrations of people from the Ukrainian refugium, followed by the migration of the indo-Europeans. lastly, a minor amount could then have been introduced by the Slavs. Whilst 12 % may be accurate for Greece on the whole, it has been found to be 35 % in Greek Macedonians by Pericic et al, suggesting that a proportion of Greek Macedonians are descendents of Hellenized Slavs. Hxseek (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in the above post? First you say the haplotype was introduced to the Balkans before the Slavic invasions and is therefore an unlikely marker of Slavic genetic origins, in which case we should correct the text. Then you say its higher presence in Macedonians links them to Slavic ancestors. Which is it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned we should do away with this whole Genetic origins section. It is simply in poor taste and for the life of me I can't understand what it actually tells us about Greeks. That being said, since you brought the Pericic et al. study up here's the exact quote I found. You won't find anything about "Greek Macedonians being descendants of Hellenized Slavs" (although I find it highly probable) and there is no mention to a "minor amount" of R1a "being introduced by the Slavs". Here's the exact quote: "At this level of resolution, it is not clear what temporal and effective population size differences contributed to this deep Paleolithic signal as high R1a variance in SEE might be explained by either ancient demography or more recent bottlenecks and founder effects in different Slavic tribes. At least three major episodes of gene flow might have enhanced R1a variance in the region: early post-LGM recolonizations expanding from the refugium in Ukraine, migrations from northern Pontic steppe between 3000 and 1000 B.C., as well as possibly massive Slavic migration from A.D. 5th to 7th centuries." The data on Greek Macedonians come actually from Semino et al. 2000 and are simply cited in the study by Pericic et al. with no further commentary on their interpretation. Pericic et al. did not study any samples from Greece their samples came from Zaboke, Zagreb, Donji Miholjac, Delnice, Pazin, Dubrovnik, Zenica, Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Belgrade, Pristhina, Skopje as it is stated in fig. 1 p.1965. I think that your remarks are actually OR. Does anybody else agree we should delete this whole section?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article is a pro-Greek propaganda probably written by guys who just cant face the truth that modern Greeks have nothing to do with the ancients. --79.167.67.27 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Provocative statements aside, like the IP's above, I agree with Giorgos that the genetic origins section would have to go for many reasons. First it is downright silly. Second genetics can be used for propaganda depending on the spin one chooses to impart to the data presented. Third genetics data, already controversial, presented by editors untrained in genetics is simply a call to information chaos. Fourth, given the kinetics of the immigration movement and the declining birth rates of the current populations of Europe in a few generations the whole of Europe will be genetically foreign to the present make up. In conclusion: This is simply silly. The only problem is, however, that other articles such as the British people for example, still have such silly sections. So this appears to be a Wikipedia-wide problem. This problem needs a global fix. Dr.K. (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself... As for all other similar sections throughout Wikipedia I tend to classify them in the omnipresent "other crap exists" category, so there is no need for any wholesale measures. If the Brits (or any other group for that matter) feel happy with it, let them have it. As for how such data can be misinterpeted, you don't have to look far. See the opening post of this section for instance. It begins with the statement that "higher levels of R1a" is not a "marker of Slavic genetic origins" and after some pontification on the vicissitudes of this wreched haplotype it concludes that it is exactly the purported higher levels of the R1a haplotype in Greek Macedonians that indicates their slavic origin (??????) (this may of course be true, but not thanks to R1a). Needless to say that such jargon is "Greek" to the general reader. Who would ever imagine after such an array of divinely incomprehensible words that the underlying science is still at an early stage of development and that neither the validity of the methodology nor the interpretation of the results are universally accepted. I, for one, wouldn't.... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse. Let's get rid of it. BTW I don't think Encyclopaedia Britannica pursues such tabloid stuff either. Dr.K. (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree , and I too stated that the possibe presence of R1a is threefold . I agree it may be presumptuous to suggest that the higher frequency of R1a in Greek Macedonians is due to higher amount of Slavic presence - although certainly possible. Conversely, as it is the Greek genetics section denies any significant intermixing, which most likely did occur.

At any rate, I think genetics is an interesting topic. But it seems people are tyring to adapt figures to yet again push certain points of view. Hxseek (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There is something about genetics that invites all kinds of people with varying agendas to make distorted interpretations of the associated literature. Hitler comes to mind as a prime (and notorious) example of such distorted use of genetics. Dr.K. (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why we couldn't merely state something like : Greeks have R1a of __% , E3b of __ % , state the postulated origins of each haplogroup, and make a comparison statement to other European populations (something like Europeans are the most homogenous of populations) Hxseek (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You must really like genes... Well, at any rate the "Prehellenic" "Ancient Greek", "Roman","Slavic", "Albanian", "Bulgarian", "Turkish" "and (no matter how unlikely) Subsaharan?" etc. genes in my poor "Greek" genome don't need a separate section in this article. They actually seem quite at home in my personal, unique DNA. They would most certainly like to hang out with all other sorts of genes with or without a specific national afiliation (preferably from the Balkans) and -hopefully- they 'll do just that in the future. Mixing genes the human way is so much more fun than trying to write about them in Wikipedia. So, everybody, just keep spreading those wonderful genes (for better or for worse new genes inflows actually improve genetic "health" in populations). On a side note, I'd certainly wouldn't like to be remembered only for my "genes" and surely, I can't imagine why any sensible reader needs to know the recipe of the greek gene soup (or any other national-ethnic soup in general). Unless this somebody is interested in "ra-ces"...we wouldn't like that now, or would we?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken with the usual gusto. Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes i do like them - I'm a doctor. But I am really not fussed whether you choose to include them or not. Many other peoples articles have chosen to include them. Of course this does not mean you should. I think they are interesting, e.g. see the genetics of Turkish people article and how it attempts to deal with the issue of whether modern Turks are more closely related to central Asian Turkics or to Balkan/ Mediterranean people. Investigating genetics should not be taboo, or labelled as "racist" if it attempts to answer genuine questions such as historical migratory patterns. Hxseek (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the study of gene patterns can yield useful information on subjects like the one you suggested. It definitely should not be taboo to talk about it. I'm not sure, however, if such topics should be be included in a general reference work such as an encyclopedia and especially in general articles about ethnic groups. Maybe they could be included in more specialised articles directly focusing on genetics and its application on the study of group kinetics, for example. Again I want to emphasise that in no time I thought your comments were in any way related to the R-word. But discussions about genetics have built in hazards and the R-word and genetics, somehow, especially in general conversations, have a way to find each other. It's a loaded subject with bad past and even worse connotations. Aryans, eugenics, racial discrimination are all historical minefields created by genetics. This subject cannot, unfortunately, escape its past. Dr.K. (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Imaginary dialogue: "-Excuse me are you English? -Yes I am -Oh, how wonderful, I always wanted to learn more about the English people. Get to know them better... understand their culture, their everyday life, their mentallity, their history... -Well that's nice, I would be more than happy to help you, ask me whatever you want -Excellent... I ' ll do just that... so pray tell me... where did you get your genes from?..." --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments just reinforce the argument that genetics are best left out of casual subjects and kept inside academia and even then with suitable safeguards. Dr.K. (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please we dont need to have DNA analyse to know who we are. Every serious modern historic know that modernand ancient greeks are same people, of course mixed. Elementary is that yes slavic tribes settled in Greece and western Pelopones, but in all Attica, Boeotia and costal parts of Greece and Macedonia and eastern Pelopones were Greeks. Than Greeks in Greek country didnt die, but they mixed with Slavs. And than and most important think is, that general Staurakios captured Slavs and about 100 000 Slavs from Macedonia, Thessalia and Pelopones transeferd to Anatolia. And than other emperrors and generals transfered a lot of Slavs from Greece to Anatolia again. Than to 9th century to Greece came Greeks from southern Italy, northen Macedonia, Anatolia and Cyprus. We know that a lot of Greeks came settle to Pelopones and Thessaly, so if all will respect these serious historical thinks how someone ignorant could tell that modern Greeks arent from ancient Greeks?--213.151.217.140 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• And too other fact. You can see how modern Greeks looks like. A mayority of modern Greeks has dark hairs, skin and eyes. Than Greeks really are simmilar to ancient Greeks statues or other pictures. But Slavs are in mayority with blonde hairs and not dark skin (xanthoi), so you can see difference between these two nations and dont need to be an expert. Byzantine greek historic Prokopios wrote in 6 th century, in the age when Slavs came to Greece, that all Slavs has blonde hair and white skin, so modern Greeks has dark hairs and skin, opposite of Slavs, no?--213.151.217.140 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? You just managed to replace genetics with all kinds of stereotypes, all in the space of a few sentences. When I recover (lol) I'll get back at the conversation. Dr.K. (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be a Slav, then. So why do I spend most of my time here opposing them? Maybe I'm in denial... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• We must just respect history and ask: How can be modern Greeks descendants of Slavs, if a lot of Slavs were resettled from Greece to Anatolia and to Greece came ethnic Greeks from other parts of empire? Of course there is a mix with them, but element of modern Greek nation is from ancient Greeks, or Hellenes.--213.151.217.140 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Enough with these genetics, stereotypes etc.! I don't give a damn if I am a descendant of ancient Greeks or not genetically. And I refuse to stand staring at any blond-hair Greek walking in the road. Such arguments make no sense! If you see a Bulgarian (or an Albanian [especially a south Albanian]) in the road, are you sure you'll manage to discern him from a Greek?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• First Bulgarians maybe are dark too, because Bulgarians arent Slavs, but slavonized asian caln (like old Turks or Huns), in south Albania as you said there are maybe some people simmilar to Greeks, because in south Albania were ancient Greeks. But Greek and real Slav (Serbian, Russian, Slovenian) are very fysically different people. You dont need DNA for prove that moder and ancient Greeks are same nation, you will understand it if you will know history, especialy early medieval history. --213.151.217.138 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose you can also differentiate between a Slav Macedonian and a Greek Macedonian just by looking at them! Wow! And don't worry I know history. I've studied enough history to know that a Greek from Larisa though blond, he is still Greek! And I do not care about DNA! I do not care if ancient and modern Greeks are the same or not nation! No serious modern scholar follows the forgotten stereotypes you reproduce here!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Descendants of what? Ancient Greeks themselves were a mix of different races. Look at Hermes. His hair is unnaturally curly. Of African descent perhaps? Maybe Obama has some ancient Greek genes in him after all. Dr.K. (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Shit! You are damn right!!! Barak's ears remind me a bit of Hermes' as well! Now, I understand it! That is why he is so pro-Greek in the FYROM naming issue (you know, just like Carter's pro-Greek promises some decades ago). The only sure thing here is that Barak is much more Greek than User:Kekrops. This blond liar who knows where from, who cheated us all here for some time! But truth prevails in the end ... Shame on you, Kekrops(ić)!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to piss Barry off, I prefer Kekropsovski. Either that or Kekruevski. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Yannis you're right. With a name like ΚΕΚΡΩΨ he has to be the strong blond Aryan type. I doubt Greeks were ever as clean a race as ΚΕΚΡΩΨ's genetic background demands. Obama is a far surer bet to be a Greek. Maybe even more than me. But I'm glad truth has prevailed after all. Glad to be of help. Dr.K. (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to know - Bulgarians, Macedonians and Serbs are "Slavicized Balkaners". The blonde, blue eyed ancient SLavs mixed with the Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks in the southern Balkans (who were all more Mediterranean looking) to produce modern South Slavs - which vary from blonde to darker, Greek looking, especially farther south (according to Carleton Coon). In central greece, peple are more Greek-looking because there were comparitively less Slavs and blondeness is recessively inherited. Variety is great ! Hxseek (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The blondest Greeks I know are Peloponnesians, but they still look Greek to me. Greece is not Italy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No ΚΕΚΡΩΨ that's not bullshit, that's the definition of bullshit. Coon? Where did you dig this crackpot up? Let me guess...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on, Giorgos. Coon was so "enlightened" for his own time, he wasn't even a Nordicist, for crying out loud ;)! Outdated though that whole school might be, his observance of eye/hair colour in the countries he examined probably still holds true, though (I also don't think there's such a fail-safe method of "he looks X" detection). That aside, I think you're misconstruing Hxseek's comments (though I have no love for his "historical rights in Macedonia" comments in other talk pages, either :)) about genetics, as he was a tad more reserved than you give him credit for. In any case, population genetics, while probably a specialised field as far as the average reader (ie I) is concerned, might deserve a place if someone with knowledge of it contributes (the bullshit of that kind I've seen on wiki -surprise, surprise- is incredible). 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dont say me here stupidity about mythical "Hermes", has curly hair, a lot of greeks has curly hairs and what?? You Yannismarou dont wants to know who were your descandants i want to know ok? And i didnt say that you dont know history, i dontr know you, maybe you know maybe no! Im telling just true, nothing from my mind! All serious historic can say the same as me. I will say it again and different: Modern grek nation is based on these nations: Romaioi, Arvanites and Vlachs.

Romaioi are mayority of descendants of modern Greek people. but who are Romaioi from Greece? Romaioi from Greece are descandents of ancient inhabitans of Greece who lived there in 5 th century. But in myority the Romaioi are descandants of people, who settled in Greece in 7-9 century AD. These people were Greeks from Sicily, southern Italy, northen Macedonia region, Anatolia and Cyprus. They settled in Greece because large parts were depopulated when were Slavs brink to Anatolia. Than of course Romaioi had some slavic descendants too. So who are people who lived in Greece in 5th century AD and who came there in 7-9 century? These people were ethnic Greeks. Romaioi are too Greeks from Anatolia who all are from ancient Greeks, just Cappadocians maybe arent. Romaioi with minority of Arvanites, Vlachs and anatolian Roamioi (ethnic Greeks from Anatolia ) are descandants of modern Greek people, so i want to ask again: Who are modern Greeks?--213.151.217.138 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you fail to understand that Hermes' curly hair is an Afro. Afro is a special type of curly hair which originates from Africa. Hermes is, therefore, of African origin and so were many Ancient Greeks. Dr.K. (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Imaginary dialogue II: "-Excuse me are you Greek? -Yes I am -Oh, how wonderful, I always wanted to learn more about Greeks. Get to know them better... understand their culture, their everyday life, their mentallity, their history... -Well that's nice, I would be more than happy to help you, but the only thing you need to know is that we are blond, white and blue-eyed... oh and keep in mind that the levels of the R1a1 haplotype, associated by some with Slavic migrations have been found to be less than 12% in Greeks..."--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely bizarre. Point well made. Only problem is people keep insisting on this stuff. Dr.K. (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're being rediculous. No one is detracting from the importance of history, culture and the people. That is undeniable. Hxseek (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is called sarcasm actually. It is the last retreat before loosing one's sanity. I' d better start dying my hair and wearing eye lenses next time I want to conform with Mr Coon's bullshit classifications. So sad...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Intervention

Genetics section

I would like to voice my disagreement with the majority of users who want to delete the article's "Genetics" section. Granted, I am against anyone who sees the Greeks only through the prism of genetic structures and R1a1 haplotypes (especially in cases where genetic "evidence" hardly coincides with physical data). However, genetics is an academic field of study that provides as much of a valid standpoint in understanding human history as anthropology, ethno-cultural studies, linguistics, religion, etc. Though genetics is an imperfect field and subject to politicization by multiple agenda-seeking groups, the same can be said for any other field of study. Our job as users is to determine if this section contains reliable and verifiable data from aspects of modern scholarship. Therefore, deleting the "Genetics" section on the grounds that it might promote "racism" is, by default, a POV stance.

According to my analysis, the "Genetics" section contains both reliable and verifiable data that coincides with WP:RS. Moreover, the section hardly contains any OR or any POV statements associated with Aryans/Nazi Germany. On a technical note, deleting the "Genetics" section would go against WP:NPOV since a "genetic perspective" should not be ignored if it is based on reliable and verifiable evidence. Deucalionite (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Greekness

All this talk about Greekness has somewhat aggravated me, because most users here have missed the big picture. Greekness incorporates different paradigms of identity, which include descent (i.e. ancestor worship and not "protein-based chromosome worship"), culture, religion, language, and political orientation. These forces have historically influenced each other and continue to influence each other. Therefore, users that try to shove Greek identity into a cultural box or a genetic box ultimately foster inaccurate perceptions and analyses regarding aspects of Greek history.

I would like to inform Mr. Anonymous (i.e. 213.151.217.138) that though genetic studies have their place, they should not be regarded as the only source of information. You need to adopt a more multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary mode of thinking when studying any historical period. Regarding the relations between Byzantium and the Slavs, I recommend that you read Florin Curta's work entitled The Making of the Slavs (you can find a few pages on Google books). Next, please read Byzantine literature between the lines (oftentimes "face value" literary analyses aren't good enough these days). I would also like for you to read some archaeological reports so that you can see for yourself that there is barely any evidence to indicate that the Slavs massively settled Greece and remained there until they were demographically transported to other regions of the Byzantine Empire. I hope that my advice is helpful and by no means am I trying to belittle you in the suggestions I have provided.

Remember, genetics is only part of the story. Never forget the rest. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And i fear that I have opened a can of worms now by starting the whole genetics debate. Judging by the above comments by some people, we obviously must be careful when discussing such a subject, judging by some of the blanket, generalising statements made by some readers.

However, Mr Deucalionite, I would disagree with you about the issue of Slav settlement. I have no incliniation either way, it is not my intention to somehow lessen the greatness of modern Greeks by trying to prove that they intermixed with Slavs. However, I'm sure your acquainted with the accounts written by your own ancestors - John of Ephesus et al, describing the number of Slavic settlements in Greece. Yes, they were probably exaggerations. So too are, in all likelihood, the reported numbers of Slavs being subsequently removed By Constans and others. Undoubtedly, many Greeks remained. But there were many Slavs also, particularly in the north. They were gradually Hellenized over a process of a thousand years (which lasts to this day ! ) . Even in Ottoman times, there were a few Slavic settlements in the Peloponessus .

But ultimatley, it doesn't matter. What matters is the cultural legacy, which was maintained by the coastal cities such as Thessaloniki and Constantinople. This re-spread the modified Greco-Roman culture not only to Greeks, but through eastern Europe- that is why Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians, Russians are all Orthodox.Hxseek (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your standpoint and appreciate your candor Hxseek. However, I recommend that you read some archaeological reports that collectively show very little evidence of widespread "Slavic invasions" in Greece. Regardless of what John Fine might say, the physical data (or lack thereof) cannot be easily dismissed. Also, Byzantine literature must be read cautiously. John of Ephesus mentions Slavs "occupying" territories only within the context of banditry (or military affairs) rather than permanent settlement-building. I really recommend reading Florin Curta's The Making of the Slavs. It is a very professional book and I am sure it can answer many questions about who the Slavs are and what they did. Keep in mind also that the Hellenization of the Slavs entailed processes of linguistic and cultural education (with religion as the vehicle) rather than assimilation. Trust me, if the Slavs were really Hellenized, then the Bulgarian Empire, which incorporated the majority of the Slavs in the Balkans, would have never existed. Though I fully respect your position my friend, I recommend avoiding anything that technically constitutes "obsolete scholarship" in lieu of modern research, new forms of evidence, and up-to-date analyses of extant evidence.

Ultimately, what really matters my friend is to teach Hellenism to others while Hellenes preserve what they teach (old saying: "practice what you preach"). Deucalionite (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All valid points, and I know this is far off topic, but out of interest. I have just purchased Florin's book, and have already read his earlier book Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Sure, Florin has one view point. Other's have different views.

As to the (lack) of archeological evidence, lets draw a comparison. There is actually also very little evidence that Slavs settled Illyricum . Yet they undeniably did ! This is because they did not have distinct material culture in the Balkans. They very quickly assimilated with native Balkaners and adopted a mixture of Byzantine, Daco-Getic and even Germanic elements to their material culture - leaving very little in the way of any uniquely identifiable proto-Slavic culture (ie that resembling the Prague-Korchak and Penkovo cutures to the north). These are not obselete views, but very up to date. Such matters are always controversial given that some people unfortunately try to politicize the issue rather than simply trying to find the truth. The Slavs did occpy much of Greece, but certainly not ALL of it, and certainly there were many greks left, and many more were brought in over several centuries later.

As for the Hellenization process - Curta states that the Hellenization of Slavs occurred primarily by means of making the various Slavic archonts financially tempted into accepting the Byzantine socio-cultural system. This was complemented by moving in of greeks from outside of the Balkans (such as Syria, Anatolia) to augmenet the Greek presence. This happened in Greece proper, but further north the process was halted. As one went further north, the slavic presence became heavier/ more concentrated. In addition, when the Bulgarian Empire conquered Macedonia, they essentially cemented the Slavic demographic in Macedonia and further north. They did this because they formed a recognised, Christian European state. This is what other "barbarians" who disappeared failed to do, such as the Avars, Pechenegs, etc. Hxseek (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend, you need to familiarize yourself with a lot of data before making any claims. Again, read Florin Curta's work and read some archaeological reports from Greece. Also, I recommend not taking "Slavic archaeology" at face value since it is based on multiple faults one of which attempts to validate the academic heritage of politicized 19th century linguists. Therefore, a portion of your so-called "up-to-date" scholars might have based their knowledge of history on obsolete academic studies. Tread carefully.

As for your claims regarding the Slavs, here are a few things you should know:

1) Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 307-308. "Furthermore, the archaeological evidence discussed in this chapter does not match any long-distance migratory pattern. Assemblages in the Lower Danube area, both east and south of the Carpathian mountains, antedate those of the alleged Slavic Urheimat in the Zhitomir Polesie, on which Irina Rusanova based her theory of the Prague-Korchak-Zhitomir type."

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

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

Granted, Florin Curta's work embodies one academic perspective. However, it is a perspective that acknowledges the overall lack of evidence indicating that the "Slavs" dominated the Balkans all the way down to Greece since the late 6th century AD.

Also, your argument that the Slavs "lack a distinct material culture" is not logically consistent with your argument that they assimilated native Balkan populations and imbued their cultural elements into forming new types of material culture. In other words, how can the "Slavs" not have a distinct material culture but somehow manage to influence other cultures with it? Makes no sense. Every tribal group(s) carries with it some semblance of material culture. I am positive that the "Slavs" did not raid the Balkans nude.

You may also want to find some physical evidence supporting the demographic policies of the Byzantines. No professional scholar I know will ever accept the notion that "just because medieval sources mention this, we must believe them without having to scrutinize anything."

Take care my friend and remember to tread carefully before making academic claims. Deucalionite (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, I am quite familiar. I really think you are missing my point and are basing your entire arguement (from a possibly misinterpreted understanding of) the works of one, single scholar. The so - called "lack of Slavic" culture in the Balkans is because they adopted the native culture of the Illyrians and Greeks. There was a archeological continuity from pre-Slavic to post -Slavic periods. The only thing that changed was that Slavic became the lingua franca in most parts of the Balkans -all the way till the Peloponessus - the 'purest' of Greek states. It is worthless to deny that Slavs settled Greece. You must check your personal prejudices, my dear friend. Nevertheless, i will wait until I recieve my order of Florin's book. Take care until then. You might hear from me later on your personal page.Hxseek (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that my entire argument may possibly be based on a misinterpreted understanding of one scholar (Florin Curta) is a weak counterargument. Hell, if you want another source that validates the fact that there is a "lack of Slavic culture" (in Greece especially) then go and pick up the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and look up "SLAVS". It'll cost you a pretty penny though.

Saying that I need to "check my prejudices" is another weak counterargument since everyone (including you) has a bias. The question is whether or not one's bias is based on actual events in reality. If anything, your mention of the Peloponnese as the "purest of Greek states" makes me wonder what your prejudices entail.

This one statement, I must say, is the "best counterargument" ever: It is worthless to deny that Slavs settled Greece. Deny what exactly? The fact that a bunch of raiders attacked Greece like the Vandals and Goths before them, took their loot back across the Danubian frontier, settled only in areas near Thessaloniki while besieging the city, and afterwards became military colonists stationed by the Byzantines in the Peloponnese until they "revolted" where they got their hides handed to them leaving behind two tribes that perished in obscurity? Oh no! I'm suffering from "denial"! Save me!

No hard feelings, but I know you can do better than this. And since you claim to be quite familiar with the literature, I expect you to gather those archaeological reports I told you about. Overall, I look forward to speaking to you soon my friend. Hopefully, you'll be able to reach me before I take my "wiki-break" since I have some pressing matters to attend to. Take it easy. Deucalionite (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deucalionite. Please read this [5], Hxseek and I have a little discussion about Slavic settlement in the Balkans. F. Curta is excellent source, pieces that you can read in Hxseek's talk page are completely in accordance to his writing. Actually there was gradual Slavization of the natives in the Balkans, some narrow migrations in 6th century and after were just second layer of Slavic (proto-Slavic) speakers. First larger layer didn't have any Slavic characteristic except language. Their culture was completely the native one. Zenanarh (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. What is the extent of the "second layer" if I may ask? Deucalionite (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial settlement of Stokavians ("second layer") where they formed homogenous dialect area (with distinguished archeological material) after arrival: the most eastern parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, western Serbia, southern Croatia (southern Dalmatia near Montenegro), Montenegro, southern Serbia, northern Macedonia. Regions where Stokavians influenced and were mixing with the older Slavic layer in the next centuries (6th-9th): Bosnia and Herzegovina (developement of Ikavian Scakavians - Croats), southern Serbia and Macedonia. It seems that Stokavians didn't reach nor mixed or influenced the most southern regions with Slavic population in northern Greece as well as Bulgaria, the most of Croatia and Slovenia.

Apart from Stokavian dialect, according to archeology, there are some similarities in traditions among mentioned Stokavians and Kaikavians in Slovenia. Also there's another interesting relation. Some sorts of cystic fibrosis genetical disease are caused by specific genetic mutilation. This mutilation is evaluated ~ 2.000 years old, originated in the region settled by the Balto-Slavs 1.500 years ago. In the Balkan it can be found only in the northern Greece and Macedonia, it's not recorded among the CF patients in Serbia, Montenegro, B&H and Croatia, but then found again in Slovenia and Austria (where a large Slavic population was Germanized during Medieval). Zenanarh (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will read Curta's book shortly - for now i will leave you a couple of quotes from the renowned Balkanologist John V A Fine, from his book The Early Medieval Balkans.

it seems clear that Slavs settled in large numbers in the Peloponessus; thus they settled in every region of mainland Greece

Slavs lived in the hinterland and countryside, while Greeks held certain fortified coastal towns

The Slavs, practicing agriculture in the region of these towns, in all likelihood went to the towns to trade (with the Greeks)

Yet some Greek villages must have remained in the countryside too; presumably there would have been pure Greek, pure Slav and even mixed villages, and with time inter-marriage, assimilation.

On the re-Helleneziation: With restoration of Byzantine administration, which strongly supported an active church missionary program during the 9th century, there followed Christianization and Hellnization of many Slavs... with Slavs becoming Grecized. Thus by the 10th century, except for pockets here and there, all the Peloponessus was "Greek" again (ie Greek in language and culture). [NB the quotation marks were placed by Fine himself].

He goes on : It is evident that in this period a great deal of ethnic mixture between Slavs and Greeks occurred; probably few full blooded Greeks - if such existed prior to the Slavic invasions - were left. Thus there is no reason to beleive that Greeks now are any purer-blooded than any of the other Balkan peoples. But, of course, it is culture rather than blood lines which matters. .. Though the resultant population was ethnically mixed, Greek language and culture triumphed and, by the 10th century, most of the population of Greece beleived itself to be greek and therefore can be considered so .

John Fine is a non-Balkan historian, lecturer at the University of Michigan, and most of all- has no need to be biased toward any one side.

Hxseek (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

John Fine can hardly be considered an accurate historian just because he has a "non-Balkan bias". Based on the quotes you've provided, I doubt this history professor is a Byzantinist. Some of his statements are just way off. Other statements look downright questionable: it is culture rather than blood lines which matters (yeah, because people in the medieval Balkans all of a sudden ceased distinguishing each other based on tribal origins; read some works by Procopius). His arguments seem to either to be based on misinterpretations of Byzantine literature or misinterpretations of physical evidence. Has Mr. Fine contacted the archaeological services of Greece to see if there is really any proof of Slavic settlements spanning the entire Greek mainland? Or is he just embracing some arguments attributed to Pan-Slavism dating back to the politicized 19th century linguists I told you about? Oh, wait. Isn't Pan-Slavism an ideology that shouldn't be incorporated in any "objective text"?

Florin Curta is way more realistic and way more objective that John Fine. Hands down. Deucalionite (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Curta may well be more accurate. That is for the academic community to decide. Like I said, the issue is contentious. At least I am keeping an open mind and am merely stating that there are alternative theories. Whereas you seem to have concluded your mind on the matter based on the work of one scholar and his personal theory. It's quite funny you just summarily dismiss Fine's work although yuu probably haven't even read it. Is this a correct academic approach ? Like you said - surely you do better than that?

Even Greek historians have back-tracked on their denial of large presence of Slavs in northern and central Greece. The only debate they wage is whether Slavs settled the Peloponessus in any significant number.

"The Slavs did not occupy any part of Greece" - Recent Advances in Historical Denial by Mr. Deucalionite, 2008 (Clarification: I said that they only occupied areas around Thessaloniki. 100-year old maps won't help you Hxseek. "It is worthless to deny that Slavs settled Greece" - Recent Advances in Obsolete Scholarship and Historical Close-mindedness by Mr. Hxseek, 2008. Deucalionite (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

But we might as well stop this arguement. I can tell you are getting a bit worked up about it and aren't even paying any attention to my accounting for the supposed 'lack of evidence' .

Hxseek (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that "it is worthless to deny that Slavs settled Greece" and that I should check my "personal prejudices" hardly indicates open-mindedness on your part.

The real reason I dismiss Fine is because I have read his works and found them to be unimpressive. The quotes you selected merely reinforced what I have already known for a while now.

The only Greek historians that have back-tracked on their denial of Slavic settlements in Greece are the ones who haven't scrutinized the archaeological evidence well enough to establish a proper understanding of actual events. That "Slavic archaeology" tends to exaggerate the extent of the Slavic settlements and Slavic migrations has unfortunately contributed to such a trend.

I can tell you right now that I am not "getting worked up". I am just having some fun with this debate since things have been getting kind of dull for me these past few weeks. So lighten up and have a beer on me.

The correct academic approach is for you to get those archaeological reports from Greece I told you about and pick up the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and look up "SLAVS". Good luck and I still have faith that you can do better than this. Ha. Take it easy pal. Deucalionite (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will. Good luck Hxseek (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You too. Deucalionite (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetic information as applied to individuals: A thought experiment

So I gather here is a simple thought experiment involving the genetic information provided in the article:

1. Let's assume that the information in the article is correct and that Greeks, on average, are a continuous race through the ages unmixed with any undesirable DNA.
2. We then as Greeks must feel proud for this continuity.
3. BUT wait a minute. I don't know my own DNA as an individual. I simply know that my fellow Greeks, on average, are direct descendants of the ancients. But what about my own personal DNA? How does that compare with the national average?
4. I take a DNA test and presto! bad news. It comes up that I come from undesirable stock. Nothing to do with the Ancient Greeks. What do I do then? Am I still proud that, on average, (my fellow?, well maybe not anymore) the other Greeks are pure? I don't think so because by now I must feel humiliated that I failed this important test. What do I do then? What do I do now that I discovered my DNA is not up to the Greek purity standards? I cannot face the other Greeks anymore.
5. Conclusion : Every Greek must take a DNA test to determine his/her relative purity, otherwise they cannot claim that, as individuals, they are direct descendants of the ancient Greeks. If their individual DNA tests came up to standards then they are entitled to feel proud as members of the Master Race. If not, they may feel proud for the others that made it (how likely is that?) or simply, (and more likely), feel humiliated that they did not measure up. Now the question arises: When do I wake up from this nightmare? Dr.K. (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• • This article doesnt say 'Greeks are pure', it says 'Greeks are continous' for the most part.

You shouldn't judge DNA and say certain DNA is 'undesirable,' no genes are 'undesirable' in my mind; genes are genes. Nobody in here is judging DNA like that, that is your invention. I dont think anybody has a problem with any DNA- be it Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA.

Nobody here is claiming Greeks to be a 'master race'-If that's what you got from reading this article, you should get your eyes checked out. You are creating another false dilemma. I dont think any Greeks think they are some kind of 'master race'-if I was Greek I would be offended that you would think Greeks are so narrow minded and shallow. it's as if you are saying all Greeks are racists with a superiority complex. The people who wrote the article used sources for the information regarding the continuity of Greeks as a nation(Coon, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza and others believe there is a great deal of continuity...), it wasn't anyone here--you are ranting to the wrong crowd.

No population is completely homogeneous; however, the data seems to show they are genetically similar to nearby Balkan populations-right where one would expect South-East Europeans to be. This is not to say ALL Greeks are of Balkan stock, this just seems to suggest MOST are(there are always exceptions and outliers in sampling-esp. in certain locations) in any population. Ex: the genetic impact of Etruscans can be seen in Italy in the form of higher frequencies of haplogroups J and G(mainly in North-Central Italy, esp. Tuscany), but this wouldn't make a huge impact on the Italian population as a whole.

Sorry for the messy reply, it is late and i'm tired.

Here are some interesting population genetic studies that include Greeks:

• ‘The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective’:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1155

• ‘Measuring European Population Stratification with Microarray Genotype Data’:

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)60950-1

• ‘European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations’:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143

• ’Discerning the Ancestry of European Americans in Genetic Association Studies’:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030236

• ‘High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population':

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361127

• ’Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape across linguistic barriers’:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118548826/PDFSTART

• ’HLA polymorphism in Bulgarians defined by high-resolution typing methods in comparison with other populations’:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118904328/PDFSTART

• ’Clinal Patterns of Human Y chromosomal Diversity in Continental Italy and Greece’:

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf

• ’ High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces

Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations’: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/10/1964

• ’Genetic map of Europe; genes vary as a function of distance’:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/08/genetic_map_of_europe_genes_va.php

• ’The Genetic Map of Europe’:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

note:If the links dont work, google the study title.

134.121.247.116 (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is ranting to the wrong crowd. Dr K. was taking the argument in extremis to illustrate the danger behind this type of thinking. That' s not so difficult to grasp now, is it? Population genetic studies are a tricky thing, especially when they are used to back up national myths. This is not an innocent field and Coon is not the harmless, carefree daisy in the racial meadows. It's no coincidence he was accused for promoting segregationism in the USA with his studies. And at the end of the day, I still fail to see what all this genetics discourse has to do with Greeks per se. Am I to suppose that Greeks should be understood as a biological reality rather than a cultural construct? Because if that what this whole discussion is insenuating I would find it extremely limiting and profoundly... shallow. I' d better read some Heimonas, some Kavafis and hear a Hadjidakis song rather than browse through "genetic maps" and haplogroup studies.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dr. K's "thought experiment" is not very realistic even if it is only illustrating the supposed "dangers" associated with the "Genetics" section. The "experiment" sounds more like a list of POV rantings rather than anything based on serious scholarship. The mere assumption that the "Genetics" section of this article will compel Greeks (including myself) to spend enormous amounts of time and money to undergo individual genetic testing is ludicrous. What is even more ludicrous is the notion that if undesirable genes emerge in a Greek's genetic testing results, that he/she will experience a nervous breakdown from the "fact" that he/she is not a direct descendant of the ancient Greeks. No sensible Greek relies on one form of evidence to determine his/her historical background.

If Greeks are deemed a "biological reality" by professional scholars (except Coon) in a professional field of study, then so be it. Our job as users is to report on the "genetic perspective", which I am sure readers are intelligent enough to realize does not constitute the only perspective in the overall article.

Let us please end this discussion now before it gets out of hand. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, the "Genetics" section should remain. Users should stop exaggerating the supposed influence this section has on readers when it hardly constitutes 1/5 of the article's overall content. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is ludicrous is trying to suggest that Dr K's thought experiment should be taken literally... but you are right in saying that there is no consensus here. Since people are going to be so "profoundly" enlightened by the so called "genetic perspective" then so be it... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ΒTW, My job as a user is not to send critical thinking flying out the window, just because you say so... So do spare me and Dr K, the pontification on what users are supposed to be doing in wikipedia, my dearest Deukalionite. We can still have well informed opinions on the relevance of genetics and their relative importance in ethnic groups articles--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not suggest that Dr. K's "thought experiment" should be taken literally. I am questioning the experiment itself. If someone else decided to provide a "thought experiment" on how "superior" or "inferior" Greeks are biologically, then I would question it without hesitation.

Moreover, my dearest Mr. Tzimas, I am not saying people should not use their critical thinking skills. However, I have every intention of preventing what seems to be a circular discussion regarding the validity of genetic studies from harming the current well-crafted state of the article. So, spare me the assumption that I am engaging in "pontification" when users here are promoting distorted views of what Greekness is and isn't.

Opinions are great, but they have to also be substantive. This discussion page should not be turned into a soap-box while we avoid other pressing matters such as enhancing the article in order for it to reach FA status. Deucalionite (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetic soap-boaxing I might add...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Deucalionite (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• You dont need DNA to know who Greeks are, if you know history you must agree that "Greeks are Greeks" for 4000 years. But im not extremist. About Slavs in Greece, yes we can find very hard some subjects of slavic present in Greece, because slavs were like all non Hellenes and Romans, barbarians. And barbarians didnt have buildings from stones, they lived in village. Same it was in Dalmatia where Slavs settled in city of Spalato and in old Diocletians´s palace and this city and palace dividet to villages. One family had they own part of street. Thats why we can find just ceramic, or simmilar sublects and that we can to think, that Slavs werent in Greece. But they were in Greece, but not in all Greece. In all costal parts of Greece were Greeks in mayority. SLavs never went to eatsern Pelopones and Mani peninsula and than of course in island (just small slavic inhabitans of Crete). All southern Greece were Greek, or Slavo-Greek. Than a lot of Slavs were ressetled to Anatolia. In Pelopones and to Greece (especialy in Thessaly were Greeks were in costal parts) came Greeks from other parts of empire. They mixed with rest of Slavs and all became Hellenes. In Pelopones were slavic tribes of Milings and Ezerites still to 15 th century, than they hellenized. So here must be continuity between modern and ancient Greeks. So i dont need to kow DNA if i will respect this history. Its really not true that Greeks arent descandants of ancient Greeks. In all parts of Greece are people who are theyr descandants. But if we want to find purest Greeks we must to go in Pelopones (in eastern parts are desendants of ancient peloponesians, tsakonians too and in other parts there ar in mayority descandants of Greeks from Sicily and Anatolia), than in islands and Cyprus and too Greeks from western Anatolia, costal anatolian parts and Pontos.--213.151.217.129 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions and I am glad that you are being candid about your standpoints. However, please refer to forms of scholarship prior to making any claims. Deucalionite (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification: A thought experiment is meant to be an experiment first and foremost. It is meant to push the boundaries of logic. If it were a safe experiment then it would be useless. Ergo the terms I used such as Master Race etc. You could equally well substitute "genetic (ancient) Greekness", "Genetic closeness to ancient Greeks" etc. etc. The fact remains that these studies when applied to individuals can be harmful because they can potentially create genetic based differentiations and thus schisms between the population groups based on ethnic origin. So before this gets completely out of hand as in comments like "I have to have my eyes checked out" or that I implied that Greeks are narrow minded and shallow or that they have a superiority complex or that I engage in POV rantings etc., I want to emphasise that these rebuttals simply miss the point. First of all if you put genetic information in the article you expect that this information can be used. It can be used to further a cause. To prove something. It can be used by governments and also by individuals. I wanted to point out that genetic markers create genetic levels. Genetic levels create genetic standards. Genetic standards create expectations and expectations, if not met, in humans, could potentially (and I emphasise potentially, since disclaimers must always be used in such conversations) create disappointment. My family originates from Greece through many generations. Isn't that not Greek enough? When I was a kid it was inculcated in me that the ancient Greeks were my ancestors and that I should be proud. My teachers never told me "You should be proud based on your haplogroup". Now the genetics people tell me "Yes they were your ancestors but...." But what? "Your DNA may not have the same characteristic haplogroups as theirs" Oh gee sorry. Yes I know. They are my spiritual, linguistic, cultural etc. ancestors but my blood lineage does not come from them. However Spyros, the neighbour, has the right DNA markers. He is related to them. Oh no. Spyros is more (genetically) Greek than me. How disappointing. It could get worse. In the future, testing your DNA to see how close you are to the ancient Greeks, given the advances of science, might become as commonplace as getting a DNA patch similar to a nicotine patch from the pharmacy, so it might not involve huge amounts of time or money as suggested above. In that case I am confident many people could do it, if influenced by article sections such as the one we have here, and they could, potentially, be harmed by it. Conclusion: When we write articles we undeniably influence people and if the information we present is controversial, useless or even harmful, on the individual level, it should be handled carefully and possibly dismissed or, in the very least, the purpose and the reason for including it in the article should clearly be stated. I am sure that Encyclopaedia Britannica does not carry such stuff in its articles. Why should we? Dr.K. (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes some Greeks are more gennetic simmilar to ancient Greeks and some not, but its not historical possible that dont exist 1 Greek who doesnt have ancient ancesors!!!--213.151.217.144 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense Taso, but I really doubt that individual Greeks are going to compete over who has more Greek haplotypes. Though Greeks love to mention about the life stories of their ancestors, I find it laughable that such an innocuous tradition will transmogrify into some eugenics-based caste system. Honestly, on what grounds should we base the assertion that removal of the "Genetics" section will prevent individuals from undergoing genetic testing anyway? The World Wide Web, last time I checked, is a lot bigger than Wikipedia.

Granted, I understand that Wikipedia commands a significant amount of influence. However, how does this influence equate to people checking their "bloodlines" to determine if they will become members of some arbitrarily created "Master Race"?

Though your "thought experiment" is intriguing adelphe, it is unfortunately quite unrealistic. I agree that from a logical standpoint, genetic markers help to establish genetic standards. However, these standards function within the academic limitations of genetics as a field of study. You should worry about human expectations only if genetic standards and genetic markers become holistically institutionalized in places such as hospitals, schools, pharmacies, and rehabilitation clinics. Wikipedia is just an on-line encyclopedia with the sole purpose of informing readers since doing anything outside of that basic parameter would circumvent WP:NPOV. Deucalionite (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Mr. Anonymous (213.151.217.144), could you please try and cease adding fuel to the fire? Though your input is much appreciated, I think that now is the time to put an end to this circular discussion about the validity of genetic studies. Deucalionite (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What fire Deucalionite? This time I did not understand what the anon even said let alone take it as adding fuel to a fire. Anyway. Your point about genetic testing is well made. I agree that Wikipedia is not the only source on the web and that people so inclined will test themselves anyway. But I meant that the more we expose this the more we give it credibility even though its usage and practicality on a daily basis to individuals is next to nothing and could even lead to problems if people start thinking along genetic lines. I know it doesn't happen now, at least not on a large scale. But why should we, in Wikipedis, start exposing readers to genetics stuff that doesn't have a precise reason for existing. It simply exists as a set of data. But for what purpose? What is the reader supposed to infer from this genetic data? That the ancient Greek genes still exist? That the modern Greeks are on average direct descendants of the ancient Greeks? What does that matter? What is the definition of an ancient Greek gene? Who defined it and under what criteria? What about the ancient Greeks from the colonies including Africa? What happens in 100 years from now when all the immigrants to Greece are assimilated? How would the DNA look then? I could go on and on but I won't. At best this stuff is for for geneticists with a lot of time on their hands. I can't see how real people can use this information to better their knowledge and their lives. The purpose of this data is ill-defined, therefore its mere existence in the article makes a statement, very close to POV, and will confuse readers. Others may even take it as a form of racism and propaganda. Only if we present it in the article with an introduction explaining why we have it then it might be ok. But I can't even think of an introduction to this. Why doesn't Britannica get involved in analysis such as this? Do they know something we don't perhaps? Dr.K. (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The fire I am referring to Taso entails individuals instigating arguments about whether or not Greeks are the descendants of their ancient forebears. Mr. Anonymous started talking about how every Greek has ancient Greek ancestors. This will somehow compel another user to come out of nowhere and state how the Greeks embody a filthy and corpulent mosaic of different ethnicities including Slavs, Turks, and Albanians. Once such an argument has been stated, another Greek will interfere to defend the Greekness of the Greeks with "xiphos and aspis". This annoying cycle has to end, because it is vexing to me and to all users who have heard such arguments a thousand times.

Let us now get back to our discussions regarding the "Genetics" section of the article. So far, you have made many good points adelphe. However, I find nothing wrong with the section since it does adhere to Wikipedia policies. Moreover, readers can utilize genetic information and conduct comparative analyses with other forms of evidence (i.e. archaeological, anthropological, etc.) to see if there are in fact correlations between Greeks from disparate historical periods.

The reason I believe readers are not confused with the "Genetics" section is because the section itself contains no confusing or conflicting data. Though there are genetic markers commonly inherent in Greeks (and other Mediterranean populations), I don't think it is necessary to specify them since doing so would put too much emphasis on "Greek genes". We also don't need to emphasize those who have defined "Greek genetic markers", because the "References" section contains the names of the authors responsible for the genetic studies provided in the article. As for the foreign immigrants in Greece, it doesn't look as if they will be assimilating into the Greek corpus anytime soon (or even in 100 years for that matter). I cannot say what "Greek DNA" looks like, but I can tell that that it loves to drink frappe, play backgammon, and call every bystander with a bottle of Windex and a copy of My Big Fat Greek Wedding a "malaka". Keep in mind adelphe that though the Greeks are members of the omogeneia, there is this thing called "genetic distance". This is a perfectly natural phenomenon in which one generation of Greeks, for example, does not identically resemble the next generation of Greeks in terms of physical features. Of course, such a phenomenon hardly degrades the Greekness of any Greek who probably relies more on historical and cultural evidence to prove that he/she is a descendant of "noble Pericles".

Overall, our purpose as users is to provide equal emphasis of all relevant and evidence-based perspectives in an article. If we decide to remove the "Genetics" section, then why not remove future edits that involve sociological studies of the Greeks? Better yet, why not prevent the spread of knowledge by hampering users attempting to install anthropological data? This may be allowed on Encyclopedia Britannica but not on Wikipedia. The reason genetic studies can be found in Wikipedia and not in Encyclopedia Britannica is because the former is open-minded enough to realize that there are different perspectives out there. Deucalionite (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you were able to decipher what the anon was talking about because I still can't. But if that's what he was trying to say then you were right in your remark. But I disagree with your anthropology example about preventing the spread of knowledge by making it difficult for users to add controversial, vague, useless or loaded material to Wikipedia. Omitting subjects is not automatically censorship or knowledge spread prevention. Sometimes it's just good taste. As in the case of genetics. But let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing you skipped the part where I made jokes about "Greek DNA". I don't blame you since my previous post was a tad long.

You do make some good points adelphe. However, I still don't see what is so "controversial" and "vague" about genetic studies. I admit that the field is imperfect, but it has come a long way. Besides, it is hard to see geneticists dabbling in pseudo-science nowadays since academic standards today prohibit the use of ambiguous terminologies and loaded concepts. The purpose of every professional scientific field, including genetics, is to be precise. No shortcuts, no bullshit. Like I said before, the "Genetics" section does not violate Wikipedia policies. So far, I don't recall ever seeing a policy in Wikipedia that says users can remove well-sourced content for the purposes of "maintaining good taste".

Sorry for being such a stumbling block. I guess you'll have to blame my stubbornness on my "Greek DNA". Ha. Deucalionite (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No I did not skip the Greek DNA joke part. But since it required no rebuttal I simply did not comment on it, even though it was quite funny. Plus at this stage I'm trying to be as economical typing as I can. As far as you being a stumbling block I disagree. You are not. If the consensus is to keep this section then so be it. I haven't seen this yet though. Dr.K. (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just so you know, Mr. Anonymous was trying to state that some (modern) Greeks are genetically more similar to the ancient Greeks than other (modern) Greeks, but that every Greek has Greek ancestors. I had to tell him to try and stop, because I had a feeling that a user would drop in and make disparaging remarks about Greek identity leading to a useless text-based "shouting match". Deucalionite (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see. Thank you for deciphering the statements of the anon especially the last: "Every Greek has Greek ancestors". The only problem sometimes arises when you start wondering how "Ancient" these ancestors are. Dr.K. (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a decent fellow Taso and I wish that you all the best. Thanks for putting up with me (even though you said I was not a stumbling block). I just hope that no one deletes the "Genetic origins" section since I can't stand to see well-sourced content go to waste. God save the genes. Ha. Deucalionite (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure Deucalionite and thank you for the nice comments. What's a minor disagreement between friends. Anyway this discussion made me re-think a few key points about what it means to be Greek and that alone was worth it. Thanks for that as well. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

You're welcome adelphe. And just so you know, I didn't mean to call your thought experiment "ludicrous". I was only trying to prevent the whole "genetic Greekness" debate from getting out of hand. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. Deucalionite (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The "ludicrous" term in the context that you used it was part of your reply to my arguments and as such it was just part of the normal exchange which of course included exaggerations on both sides, as Giorgos so aptly explained somewhere above. There was never any problem. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

• • "Nobody is ranting to the wrong crowd. Dr K. was taking the argument in extremis to illustrate the danger behind this type of thinking. That' s not so difficult to grasp now, is it? Population genetic studies are a tricky thing, especially when they are used to back up national myths. This is not an innocent field and Coon is not the harmless, carefree daisy in the racial meadows. It's no coincidence he was accused for promoting segregationism in the USA with his studies. And at the end of the day, I still fail to see what all this genetics discourse has to do with Greeks per se. Am I to suppose that Greeks should be understood as a biological reality rather than a cultural construct?"

Greeks are people...they can be viewed in a biological sense or a cultural sense or both. Nobody is trying to pry anyones identity away here. No criteria (ethnic or cultural) is supreme over the other. I dont think Italians have this identity dilemma or "pureness" concept despite their population being relatively diverse. The Greek identity could be understood in both ways. Population genetics is a way to understand who a people are, and culture is another way to understand who a people are. If someone has a problem with their personal genetic information(tested and came up with haplogroup r1a) and they feel they are somehow 'inferior' because of this...then that person is very insecure and I would have to say shallow...because they are acting on racism themselves if they feel there is 1) a standard of 'Greekness' that is to be maintained that they didnt measure up to and 2) Racist because they believe that some haplogroup and therefore the people who often bare that haplogroup are inferior somehow.

Ex: I think An assimilated Greek Macedonian (who found out they maybe bear Y-haplogroup r1a-which is indicative of Slavic people) genetically, BUT holds a common identity, ideals, values, etc CAN BE JUST AS Greek as someone who can somehow trace their ancestry back to the ancients, but who has for example immigrated and assimilated into WASP American culture. The demographics of countries change a lot over milennia...if one were to just count Greeks who geneticists believe to "typify"(if that can be defined) the ancient Greeks, then the nation would be growing ever smaller.

I'm sorry by the way, I didnt know I was part of an 'experiment' by whoever made those comments. I may have over-reacted in my response because the post seemed sort of offensive to me.

I didnt bring up this genetics debate. I included some studies that show that Greeks generally speaking have found to be natives of the Balkans. Findings which seem to contradict Fallmerayers' thesis that they were completely displaced and/or intermingled by/with Slavs and the other theories that are floating out there, like the popular white-nationalist and Nordicist school of thought that propose that the fathers of Greek Civilization were Nordics that have since been displaced genetically and/or genetically swamped by Near Easterners, Slavs, and other groups they consider 'undesirable'. And we cannot forget the afro-centrist views (see: http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/original-west-african-greeks-how-blacks-buit-greece/) that have more recently been capitalized on by FYROM propaganda in the form of hoax genetic studies that try to paint Greeks as Ethiopians for political motivations (see Arnaiz Villena's famous debunked study that has been condemned by the scientific community and was denied publicatoin in Nature magazine for not 'displaying scientific merit': http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/study-clarification-ii.html)

The genetic information isn't propaganda, and it isnt being used in a manner that would seem that Greeks are trying to paint a picture of 'purity'. No genes are 'pure'. That is more of a clarification of sorts I would see it, Greeks have been the subject of much propaganda over the years and having genetic studies and information that clarifies the propaganda with REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS isn't anything to be ashamed of. If someone says that the genetic section is an effort to paint Greeks as 'pure', then they obviously havent been exposed to any of the nonsense that is floating out there about the Greek people, and therefore dont realize the need for a clarification. I think it is justifiable to have the genetics section in the article given this context. People have to take the information for what it is, and NOT try to 'read between the lines' to uncover wicked motives for why the information is there. If the findings are done by reputable scientists and are relatively mainsteam, then there should be no problem with supplying genetic information. If the findings are contested, talk about both sides of an issue to be fair and balanced-explain the different theories that other reputable scientists may hold.

Regarding this: "Population genetic studies are a tricky thing, especially when they are used to back up national myths. This is not an innocent field and Coon is not the harmless, carefree daisy in the racial meadows."

I dont know, but it seems that you are trying to put a motive behind the findings of genetic studies and anthropological work. It's as if your saying that genetic studies are all manipulated to fulfill 'national myths', which would make the people who do them corrupt, immoral and the like. You are assaulting the scientific community. Genetics is done with data that has no bias, most genetic studies are done with more than one scientist, most genetic studies collaborate with other scientists with other ethnic backgrounds and national origins. Genetic studies arent done in a vacuum, they are peer-reviewed and are subject to scrutiny if the findings are erroneous (like Arnaiz Villenas debunked study). Many genetic studies cite/use other genetic studies to fill in missing information compare the findings to compare and contrast the results. Its hard to 'fake' a hard science...if do, you will be criticized by others in the field and be shunned by the scientific community (like Arnaiz Villena who probably doesnt have much of a career now-atleast not a respectable one). To say thpse who did those studies are 'guily'(as opposed to 'innocent') is to say that we cannot trust the men and women that we look up to in the worlds prestigious universities such as Stanford's Dr. Cavalli Sforza.

-anon 134.121.247.116 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, you're right. Please tell me whether or not you want to keep the "Genetic origins" section of the article. If you say "yes", then we have a consensus since I too want to keep the section. If you say "no", then we will all be stuck in limbo talking back and forth about the validity of genetic studies.

Before you decide, why don't you become a registered user so that everyone here gets to know you better? Deucalionite (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst certainly showing great creative thinking abilities, Mr George Tzimas and Dr K are straying way off topic. Including genetics does not add any kind of "value" to haplogroups. No one states that Haplogroup E3b is better than R1a, or the reverse, for that matter. Nor does it aim to detract from the indiviaduality of people, or the importance of history, culture, langauge and politics. But it is yet another dimension to the article, which I beleive- only enriches it.

Having a genetics section can reveal a great insight into migrations from bygone eras. They are linked to times which far preceed the modern concepts of nationality and ethnicity, but rather dates back to the Paleolithic and the time when Europe was first colonized from Western Asia. This is the main aim of such studies. It follows movements of peoples from various directions and at different times, and helps elucidate the pattern with which Europe was colonized. It does not aim to establish the "purity" or greatness of any race, because all races are biologically diverse. It is not an instrument of Eugenics or Nazi propaganda. In fact, if one has any understanding of the matter, they will clearly see that the conclusion is that Europeans are the most homogenous people on Earth sharing similar genetic backgrounds which overcome today's linguistic and political boundaries. The fracas kicked up about genetics is unfortunately the result of ignorance about the utilities of population genetics. Hxseek (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all so nice and fine but you'd better have a closer look in your original post before speaking about ignorance... I still find population genetics irrelevant with ethnic groups (and dangerous when handled by ignorant people as seems so often to be the case in wikipedia). If this section was about the homogeneity of Europeans then it would belong to an article about Europeans in general. If it was about migrations brom bygone eras then it would belong to an article about bygone eras when ethnicity and nationality were meaningless terms. Neither I nor Dr K. tried to miserepresent the importance of R1a1 and we didn't try to interpet the data from Pericic et al. in a (how should I put it)... strange manner. So let's leave it here. I see that most users want this section in the article and I am willing to leave it at that, but I am not going to pretend that I don't see what many of the above comments were about.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, you're right (except for the fact that at times genetic evidence does not always coincide with physical evidence when discussing migrations).

Anyway, I hereby support Hxseek in keeping the "Genetic origins" section of this article. A consensus has been reached, which will hopefully end this extremely long discussion regarding "genetic Greekness".

Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see we all agree. Again, yes, I think the 'genetic origins' adds just another perspective regarding the Greek identity and it should be kept. Most ethnic group articles have one, so should the Greeks.

I understand Dr. K's point. Leaving the reader with a warm and fuzzy feeling is good; and we should make sure we dont give identity problems to anyone. As long as the gentics section doesnt sound like Greeks are touting and obsessing over their 'continuity' or makes it seem like they are distancing themselves/dont like their neighbors, then the section will be just fine.

Create an account...lol. I like being an anon. If I didnt, I would have created an account over 200 edits ago. Anons dont have to log-in and they dont feel pressured to make edits to justify creating the account. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you anon for your well thought and constructive comments. Like I said, in another section above, genetics is a touchy subject and can easily degenerate to uncomfortable levels of discourse. But you summed up the key points nicely and helped reverse the entropy of the discussion. The only (minor) point of disagreement between us is that genetics as applied to ethnic groups can never give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Anyway thanks for your input and hope to see you around. Dr.K. (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• When i say "every Greek have greek DNA" i thought that in all parts of Greece exists some people who have got ancient ancestors, but there are too people who dont have. In Attica or some parts of Pelopones you can hardly to find Greeks who are descendants of ancient Greeks (Arvanites). I say again that its not possible that doesnt exist one Greek in this world who doesnt have ancient greek DNA. Please tell me what about these people of ancient Greek origin who came to Greece and Pelopones in 7-9th century AD? Where are they losed now? Where are losed theyr own descendants? And what about these Greeks who survived slavic occupation? And what about these Greeks who came to Greece from Anatolia during exchange? All these people have ancient Greek origin (just Cappadocians no)! Of course people were too mixed with Slavs and Aromanians and Arvanites, but these people are Greeks! It is not greek propaganda what im writing, if i want to make propaganda i will say that Greeks are pure for 4000 years! Im just writing serious historical facts, not more!--ImperatorCaesarAugustus (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Noone can seriously claim that there exists a pure race in the world. Concerning the Greeks and the ancient Greek continuity we can be sure that from undisputed historical accounts we know the following:

1. The Greeks came in the Balkans at least as early as 2,000 BC

2. In the Classical period the Greeks could have numbered as many as 10 million in modern Greece and Ionia (as many as 20 million as a whole). In Byzantine times Greeks as estimated to had been 15-40 millions.

3. No invader of Greece did ever followed a policy of absolute extermination of the Greeks

4. The Greek language has never stopped been spoken in the territory that today is Greece; it was never reduced to a simply liturgical language and beyond doubt continued to pass from generation to generation

5. There were parts of Greece never to be conquered by invaders (e.g. the Turks never conquered Mani; the area of Sfakia was only under nominal occupation by any of Crete's invaders)

6. Numerous Ancient Greek customs have survived in modern Greek society of every part of Greece. It would be unexpainable if someone believed that these populations do not have at least some Greek origin

7. The Greek population "walled itself in" in some period of times and did not intermarry with the various invaders for a variety of reasons (e.g. religious barriers did not allow the Greeks to marry Turks-those who wish should adopt Islam (and thus be expelled from the Greek community); this could not happen vice-versa, since Islam, during the Ottoman times of the Caliphate (and the enforcement of the Shariah law), punished apostasy with death

8. The physical characteristics of the Greek population directly point out to Medditeranean stock (and this is something noone can seriously dispute). If the Greeks had extensively mixed with the Slavs or Germanics and other Northern Europeans, they would usually have light-coloured features; if they had extensively mixed with the Turks, they would have Asian features (but such features even the modern Turks do not have, even if they claim descend from the Turkic tribes, whatever this may suppose to mean...)

So, for the most part the modern Greeks are indeed descendants of the Ancients and the Byzantines. And to those who are trying so hard to "prove" that the Neo-Greeks have nothing to do with the Ancients, i would advice some of the following:

1. Study the links provided above by User:134.121.247.116

2. Question the ethnic continuity of other ethnic groups, for example:

a. Are the English the descendants of the Englishmen of Shakespeare's time? or are they a mixture of the hundends of thousands (or even millions) of Irish, French Hugenots, Scandinavians, Dutch, German and Flemish immigrants, Polish, Russian and Greek Cypriot refugees? The British athletes in the recent Olympics, obviously did not have even a drop of British blood, yet they are considered and self-identify as British

b. Are the French descendants of Napoleonic France? or maybe offspings of millions of Italians, Polish and Northern African immigrants and refugees? Concerning the Olympic Games, the same applies for France

c. Are the Poles Slavs? or maybe descendants of slavicized Germans, Lithuanians and christianized Jews?

The examples are endless. If someone is careful enough, he/she will realize the diffences these areas have with Greece (the "barbarian consept" that motivated the Greeks in ancient times, the Greek landscape that indeed favoured genetic isolation in the Middle Ages, the religious and conquered-conqueror feelings that prevented the Greeks from mixing with the Turks in past centuries). All these do not apply to countries that are almost flat, surrounded by states with which they do not only share the same religion, but also the same demonination! Even a similar more or less language

3. Question the obvious Greek admixture in other ethnic groups: the Southern Italians and Sicilians, the Greek-speaking muslims of Pontus, the Melkites-the descendants of "Greel-speaking city dwellers" as various sources call them-, the Arab Orthodox-the Rums (Romioi) as they are usually called and self-identify.

In conclusion, what I want to prove is that there is not even a single reason for the modern Greeks to believe that they are not descended from the ancients. We do of course have foreign admixture, but this could not have altered the genetic composition of the population. And, lastly, if the Greeks cannot claim descent from those they believe they are their ancestors, no ethnic group can claim descent from any other (id est: the Irish are not Celts, the Russians are not Slavs, the Italians are not Latins). --Hectorian (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the paths of your thoughts, but I do agree with the resumée of you conclusion (if I interpret it in the right way) : we have nothing to prove. IMO cultural affinities are more important than genes' analyses. I don't think that any modern Italian would try (or be interested in) to prove that Romans were his ancestors through biology. But he would insist on the cultural continuity and affinity. By the way, where have you been for some time?!!!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yannis and Hectorian: You sure got my vote here. Great points. I agree with you Yanni that we shouldn't have to produce a genetic certificate to prove that we are Greeks and we shouldn't be using DNA results to prove our origin as if we are in a perpetual paternity test as a race. To take a line from Hectorian, why is this not asked from the Britons, the French, the Irish etc.? There is a racist undercurrent to this perpetual demand that we prove our origins. We should be so confident as to just ignore this tabloid and sensationalist drivel. And a friendly reminder to Hectorian: Please add Corfu to the places not conquered by the Turks. Thanks and take care. Tasos. Dr.K. (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that for the most part that there is definite continuity with ancient Greece. However, there certainly was a some intermixture with slavs in medieval times, especially mainland Greece. That is why mainland Greeks are relatively better looking than islanders :) Hxseek (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank god Hxseek. And I was losing any hope that you had a sense of humour! Great stuff! Dr.K. (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I knew you'd love that one. Hxseek (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. This is an understatement. Excellent delivery too. I loved the terminology. Dr.K. (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Racial Controversy

Ancient Greece is known to be an inventive civilization, which is accredited great works of art, profound works of science, mathematics, literature, philosophy, along with beautiful architectural achievements. Greece is taught to be the hallmark of world civilization. It is for this accreditation that other peoples try to steal her glory.

Nordicists, a group of people who believe the Nordic race to be the only creative race on earth, which is responsible for all world civilizations, claim; that along with the Aztec, Chinese, and Egyptian civilization, Ancient Greece was founded by Germanic settlers, who are responsible for all of Greece's inventiveness. They also claim that in classical times, the Germanic or Nordic type was predominant, implying that today's Mediterranean populations are not the Greeks of ancient times. Ofcourse they have no evidence to prove any of these claims, and commonly use the most obscure sources; from which they draw the most absurd conclusions, that go as far as possible to stretch the truth, and draw correlations from items that aren't even remotely related. They believe all of this, regardless of the fact that historians and anthropologists have dismissed their findings, and have drawn completely different conclusions. Regardless of the cult movements' falsehood, and disrespected position among the scientific community and society, no laws prohibit them from publishing their ideas, and they can cause a lot of confusion to a novice of history and anthropology, who may be unfortunate enough to come across their works. The following information will alleviate people in this situation.

Two very well respected anthropologists, which are the authority on ancient cultures both come to the conclusion that ancient Greece was a blend of Mediterranean, Alpine, and Dinaric racial types, and that the modern Greeks are unchanged decendents from their ancestors. They have reached this conclusion due to a thorough study of skeletal material which has been surveyed along with physical examinations of modern inhabitants, ancient literature, and artwork.

Well respected Anthropologist Carleton Coon had to say the following,

"It is inaccurate to say that the modern Greeks are different physically from the ancient Greeks; such a statement is based on an ignorance of the Greek ethnic character. In classical times the Greeks included many kinds of people living in different places, as they do today. If one refers to the inhabitants of Attica during the sixth century, or to the Spartans of Leonidas, then the changes in these localities have probably not been nearly as great as that between the Germans of Tacitus and the living South Germans, to cite but a single example."

"The Greeks, in short, are a blend of racial types, of which two are most important; the Atlanto-Mediterranean and the Alpine. Dinaricisrn here is present, but not all pervading; true Alpines are commoner than complete Dinarics. The racial type to which Socrates belonged is today the most important, while the Atlanto-Mediterranean, prominent in Greece since the Bronze Age, is still a major factor, it is my personal reaction to the living Greeks that their continuity with their ancestors of the ancient world is remarkable, rather than the opposite."

"The modern inhabitants of Greece itself differ surprisingly little from their classical predecessors."

A second well respected Anthropologist; J. Lawrence Angel had to say,

"Racial continuity in Greece is striking."

"The similarity between the modern skeletal material and the ancient Greek is amazing."

"Modern Greeks are the ancient Greeks". --213.151.217.141 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be preparing my DNA test soon. Will let you know about the results :-) Dr.K. (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Such Meditteranean and Alpine types can explained by the different migratory movements into Greece in ancient times (ie preceeding Mycaenean era). One direction was from the north, another from the east (Anatolia). Hence my support of possible inclusion of a "genetics section". E3b, J2, R1a can tell us useful information. Hxseek (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A wise professor once said: "The study of genes is the study of proteins". Notions that specific haplotypes can definitively trace migratory movements are based on social constructions. I am not implying in any way that genetic studies are not scientific or that they lack any scientific merit. What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on genetic studies when there are other forms of evidence to rely on for ascertaining ethno-cultural origins, migrations, expansions, etc. Genetic studies provide useful data, but not conclusive data since value structures associated with haplotypes can change over time as a result of better scientific methodologies and standards. This is why genetic studies have to be coupled with other forms of data (including physical evidence) in order to prove or disprove the viability of assigning specific ethno-cultural markers to genotypes. Of course, what do I know? I am just a guy with "Greek genes". Ha! ;) Deucalionite (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

About The Timeline...

I love that timeline on the bottom of the article, its unique and innovative...but there is one problem. Almost all the info on there isnt sourced, which is especially irritating when what is cited is specific figures and specific dates, etc. I think it would be good if we treated the timeline like the body of the article, and cite the sources where the information was gathered. Im sure some the stuff in there was taken from the article itself (which was hopefully sourced) and is just a matter of re-referencing; but some of it I suspect is new or not referenced anywhere at all, in which case were going to have to do some digging. If we could reference the info in the timeline to their sources, that would make it a lot better. Right now, there is only one statement on the timeline that is sourced...not by one, but by 6 sources!:

"Pontic Greek Genocide, approximately 353,000 Pontian Greeks killed[149][150][151][152][153][154]"

I hope we can do that for every statistic in that timeline, that would be awesome. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrollbox references

AFAIK, the scrollbox gimmick for the references list is currently deprecated. A template that used to do this was deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref and Template talk:Scrollref. Concerns include:

• Accessibility issues (apparently the scrolled section makes it more difficult to use for people with certain disabilities).
• Reflist won't print out properly.
• Generally a nuisance to have to scroll around to find things.
• On some displays, digits of the three-digit footnote numbers at the left margin get cut off.

I'd recommend getting rid of it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Who seriously keeps readding this? Every time I undo that edit, I make sure I add in the summary WP:SCROLL, but people still ignore it, unbelievable. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link. Didn't know this was already officially in the MoS. To be fair, I hadn't seen your edit summaries either, I guess they are easy to miss in the edit history. The latest two who restored it were Deucalionite and CuteHappyBrute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I had no idea about the printing issues. Even though pretty far out problems imo.. I just saw it usually used in other articles. It's a loooong article. Division to 2 columns is ok, maybe 3. 150 refs? ...CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

whoa Fallmerayer

don't you think a politically motivated Slavophobe like Fallmerayer is given too much space in here?? read User:Javits2000/Fallmerayer is dead.

maybe a smaller, better summary for him? CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Some points for discussion

"Roman Greeks never stopped teaching Homer and the Classics and cultivated the philosophical schools of Platonism and Aristotelism (sic), until the Fall of Constantinople in the 15th century" Such a semi-glorifying narrative is really hopeless. Despite the pedantic language (Roman Greeks (sic)...cultivated... philosophical schools!) it is also a gross generalisation that does little to lend an encyclopedic tone to the article. Ancient classics (let alone ancient philosophy) went almost extinct from the last quarter of the 6th century to the early 8th century AD. The classics were seldom if ever copied and in many cases manuscripts were simply erased and recycled to provide cheap writing material (palimpsests) or still worse were left to rot in God forsaken monastery libraries. Till the advent of such great figures like Arethas, Photios, Michael Psellos (et alios) in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries there was little interest in the Classics. There was even hostility towards them. In the late 10th early 11th century Ioannis Italos got convicted simply for taking Plato all too seriously, and his teacher Michael Psellos went to great lengths to disassociate himself from his pupil and persuade his contemporaries that platonic philosophy was not in fact incongruous with the Orthodox confession. We should definetely tone down such semi-glorifying narratives concerning the reception history of the Classics in Byzantium. I sincerely doubt that the reference from Britannica mentions any such thing and I would like to see some of the relevant quotations. Yet another problem is with the term "Roman Greeks". I am well aware of the problems surrounding the usage of the name "Byzantines". It is indeed an "antiquarian" anachronism coined by the hostile western historiography in the 16th century, but whether we like it or not, that's the predominant terminology and that's the one that should be used. Last but not least, what ever happened to the (par excellence) Roman Greeks? The article seems to jump from the late hellenistic to the early byzantine period as if nothing had happened in between. No mention to the emergence of a hybrid Greco-Roman identity which appeared gradually starting from the early Roman conquest till the late imperial period. Appart from some general remarks, there is no real explanation on how these two identinties fused and produced what came to be known as the eastern Roman Greek (alias Byzantine). --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement does need some tweaking. However, I doubt the underlying meaning of the statement is false given the fact that Byzantium did preserve the majority of ancient Greek classical works regardless if some of them were used as palimpsets. If all or most classical Greek works were used as palimpsets and/or burned for preaching "pagan intellectualism", then you could make the case that interest in such works significantly waned. However, most classical Greek works were "rotting in monasteries", which can technically be construed as a very crude form of intellectual preservationism on the part of the "erudite clergy".

Of course, you forget that the absence of literature does not always imply the absence of literacy. Knowledge was often transmitted via oral tradition and was often preserved via oral tradition. People back then had to rely on this since paper, as you clearly noted, was not abundant. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a "lowly Greek peasant" were to speak about his ancient Greek forebears given the fact that medieval Greek culture was a Christianized extension of ancient Greek culture.

"Byzantine" culture is technically a ruralized variant of Greek ethno-cultural traditions and Roman political culture both expressed within a Christian religious context. The "Byzantinization" of Late Antiquity Greek culture was mainly caused by the expensive economic and military policies of Emperor Justinian. The funds he utilized towards fortifying the Balkans and geopolitically re-establishing the "Old Roman Empire" led to economic repercussions that in turn led to changes in how Greeks led their lives in Greek urban centers. Of course, the ruralization of Late Antiquity Greek culture was also formulated as a result of the come-and-go raiding activities of various barbarians (i.e. Vandals, Goths, Slavs, etc.) that tended to seize various riches from various urban centers.

You make very good points adelphe, but I'd avoid exercising a Gibbons-based "doom and gloom" mentality. Deucalionite (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... I wouldn't call it "Gibbon based doom and gloom mentality" my self but that's a different story. What I wrote actually comes from a) L. D. REYNOLDS-N. G. WILSON, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford University Press, b)PAUL LEMERLE, Le premier humanisme byzantine. Notes et remarques sur l' enseignement et le culture a Byzance des origines au Xe siecle, 1971 c)Ν. G. WILSON, Scholars of Byzantium, London 1983 and d)A. CAMERON, The Byzantines, 2005. I am not saying that we should discard one generalisation to introduce another and -at the end of the day- I am not suggesting that the Byzantines did nothing to preserve and study their classical heritage. It's just that it didn't go as smoothly as the text now implies. There was a serious break in the study of the classics, whereas Platonism had a very hard time before it was finally semi-accepted as a legitimate school of thought. As late as the 15th century, Pletho had to write a whole treatise in defence of Plato after a rather rabid attack by Gennadius (later to become the first Patriarch under Ottoman rule). Don't you think we should somehow show some of that? Right now the relevant section is a real mess (and the language remains pedantic). As for the rest of your remarks I will post my opinion some time later because right now my hands are full.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources in the Timeline: Lets give a hoot!

I dont know of this is important to anybody else, but I think the timeline should be referenced to sourced information. In fact I know im not, because there is one cited figure. I brought this up before [6], but nobody gave a hoot about the lack of sources and the Wikipedia principle of verifiability in the timeline. The only sourced figure in there is the Pontic Greek Genocide. It seems awkward to have the only cited figure as the Pontic Genocide, and even more so when it is cited a ridiculous 6 times and theres not a single source on any other figure! That really sticks out, seems like we want the readers to cry over the figure something. Anyway, the Timeline is part of the article too and it should be treated like the rest of the article-where we cited sources. Im betting some of those figures are already sourced in this article and it is just a matter of re-referencing. I know I must seem like a nag that just whines about stuff since I was too lazy to do it myself, but I was hoping that the next time I looked at the article after posting that first post, it would be magically fixed by the people who know this article and the sources better than me; but it wasnt. If we could cite those sources, it will look a lot better and maybe this article will be featured someday. But that wont happen if we ignore the Wikipedia principles. Thanks, 134.121.247.116 (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes let's give a hoot. But let's also not give logic the boot. Logic dictates looking at the available articles such as the Istanbul progrom article and the The Destruction of Smyrna article, for example, to verify the relevant facts listed on the table before we tag them. Dr.K. (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The anon is obviously correct, personally I believe that the infromation is actaully a bit irrelevant to the article- and not to mention depressing and more improtantly bias. It states a lot of killings and conquests by the Turks from Constantinople to Cyprus yet neglects to state the occupation of Izmir and EOKA and Enosis- it also neglects to show that Greeks have had wars with more than the Turks e.g. the Second Balkan War such as with Bulgaria (1913 respectively) for example. References should be added to all information (not just for a genocide clarification!) and personally I feel that this information should be revised. There is more to Greek history than killings and conquests! I am shocked that this alone has made it possible for this article to be a GA. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see how that does makes perfect sense, User:Tasoskessaris, but I thought people wanted sources there seeing that the genocide factoid is sourced 6 times...that had me baffled. The references to events with Wikipedia articles I guess I would agree shouldnt be sourced, as long as we give a link to an article the article which would hopefully have the relevant information, as we did.

Now the problem is that those 6 sources on the genocide factoid flies in the face of all that logic that your speaking of! The Pontic Greek Genocide isnt even talked about in this article, yet it has 6 sources devoted to that single sentence in a brief bulleted list that contains no other sourced figures. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Those 6 references should be deleted, if not to get rid of the obvious look of bias that User:GreyisthenewBlack and I are talking about, but to also be consistent with the rest of the timeline. The timeline is a bit biased toward the Greek viewpoint in that it only talks about Greeks...but I think thats only natural given this article is supposed to be only about Greeks, and genocides of Greeks made the Greeks move, not the Turks or Macedonians, etc. I dont know what could be done to fix the bias in there...talk about the atrocities in the Greek struggle for Macedonia to make it seem more balanced? That doesnt fit too well and the tone of the last part of the article would be depressing.

My 2 cents, 134.121.247.116 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeks in America

I find it amazing that the US state Department in Background notes claims that there are an estimated 3 million Greeks in the US. For the record the last 3 Census's in the US have showed the opposite. The 1980 Census US Census showed 959.856 Greeks, the 1990 US Census 1.110.292 Greeks and the 2000 US Census 1.152.956. {see EuroAmericans} [[User:Siras] 21/11/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it more amazing that the Greeks in the UK was written as 500,000 without a reference! Thankfully somebody has changed this and added a reference (although I cannot read Greek). If we can find other citiations stating that there is 3million Greeks in America that will be helpful. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 3m people of Greek descent but only 1.4m Greeks. The two are not the same. You have to actually self identify as Greek to be Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.105.10 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10