Talk:Greece/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I definitely miss a section on the languages spoken in Greece. No matter how much we love Greece, the fact remains Greeks and their government are not always right. And I'm persuaded they are not right at all in the question of minorities. There is a section about languages for almost every country in Europe and the world, why would Greece be an exception? We know Greek is spoken there, but also Tsakonian, Albanese, Vlach, Turkish, Bulgarian and (not to offend anyone) Slav-Macedonian. Accepting the official Greek viewpoint that all inhabitants of Greece are Greeks and only speak Greek or that there are no minorities in the country is pure self-delusion, and Wikipedia should not accept it. Moreover, it would be disrespectful for the truth and for all the people belonging to these officially rejected minorities.

I read your comment on my page, I'll be sure to add something about minority languages when I have the time (of which I have precious little at the moment), but I think before thinking about that we need to:

1: Cut down the size of the history article and make each stage more relevant to how it relates to modern Greece (i.e. the role of Byzantium and the Megali idea in the early 20th century, as well as Byzantium being a more 'tangible' link with the Greek past.

2: Source a lot more of the information we already have.

3: Rewrite a few sections into a more encyclopedic tone.

4: Check for spelling e.t.c (this one is obvious).

5: Cut down on the amount of images.

--NeroDrusus 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, we could find someplace to include a wikilink to Languages of Greece --Macrakis 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Added under the minorities sub-heading.--NeroDrusus 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The history section with all those sub-sections is horrible! Since there is the article History of Greece there is no reason to overexpand here. One section per WP:SS would be fine. Another user had initiated this change, but, unfortunately, the article went back to the "old good days". Yes, we know we have a great history, but there is no reason to create such an awful structure undermining the article's quality. Many words in the wrong place are not always the best way to promote one's history. Sometimes being laconic when and where it is appropriate works better.--Yannismarou 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want the history section shortened and compressed? Or rewritten? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not read it in detail, but the sub-sections IMO should definitely be merged in one comprehensive section; this will require some shortening. Anyway, I intend to work a bit on Government right now, and in the future I'll possibly work on the History section, after of course more users express their opinion on what I said above. I repeat again that some time ago, when the "History" section was compressed and merged in one section without sub-section it was much much better, and in accord with the trend of almost all FA country articles.--Yannismarou 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. The infobox says that the first states were formed around 3000 BC while the last independent state was abolished in 1461. Runcimans' The Fall of Constantinople is provided as a reference. Thats fine, but did a state called Greece or Ellada or Hellas or Ellas really existed in the antiquity and/or during the middle ages? The term Ancient Greece doesnt refer to a particular state (like the Roman Empire or Roman Republic) but it refers to a historical period. There were several city-states like Athens, Sparta and so on, and later, in the middle ages there was the Byzantine Empire and its succesors such as the Despotate of Morea, and so on. None of those souvereign entities was called Greece (nor Hellas, Ellas etc.). Of course all of them play an important part in the Greek history and culture, so the Greek people claim them as their own, however its the statehood continuity we are talking about here. The modern Greek state was created in 1825 and thats the only real beginning of the story, before that territory was Ottoman Turkey, before that: Byzantine Empire, before that Roman Empire, before that.. and so on. There was no state called GreeceYudete cour 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree in parts here. The "first Greek civilisations" of 3000 BC(!) are plainly wrong - at that date, Greeks weren't anywhere in the neighbourhood yet. The Kykladic and early Minoan civilisations were anything but Greek. And for the later states and empires, judging to what extend they were manifestations of what we would call "Greece" is, to say the least, problematic. I don't doubt some people would regard, say, the Byzantine Empire as such. But it's not straightforwardly so, and it's not something that should be in an infobox. I keep saying here and elsewhere: Infoboxes are a severely overused feature of Wikipedia, they are unsuitable for presenting any complex, potentially contentious information. Anything that needs any significant amount of hedging, disclaimers, explanations, and anything that is not plainly and obviously factual should not be in an infobox. The obvious history in that timeline starts with 1821, I'll remove the rest (or remove the whole section from the box, if people prefer). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, you can find equally dubious claims at articles like Germany and Russia which demonstrate that the name doesn't really seem to be relevant. I think that Trebizond may be worth restoring, the view that it was a Greek state is rather widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you - with your long experience in Wikipedia(?) - certainly know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to follow. And the Holy Roman Empire at least did have a Kingdom of Germany (which was actually called that) at its core. (Maybe they should have linked to that article rather than the HRE one though). As for Trapezunt, the question is not whether it was "a Greek state", the question is whether it was "Greece". Which it was not. And by the way, this is also not just about the "name", it's about the essence of the concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "essence of the concept" and the "name" were pretty much first seen in Philip's Hellenic League and Alexander's Hellenistic Greece. There's no continuity since then, of course, but I think that was the first documented instance when all Greeks were [briefly] united in a single ethnos, with the same name. NikoSilver 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the concept of "Greece" (as a geographical-cultural unit) is probably older than that. But that's the point: it's completely independent of whether and when there was any political entity corresponding to it (there certainly never was one for "Hellenistic Greece". The short-lived existence of that "league" under Philip is a minor incident in the large scheme of things; it tells us diddly squat about Greek history as a whole (and chosing it as a point of departure here would be hopelessly OR). Fact is that no pre-modern state ever played a defining role in what "Greece" was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheren't the Greek city-states the first formation of "Greece"? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't. They were the first formation of the Greek city-states. – But even granted that you could make an argument that they were, that would only show how arbitrary all these decisions are. They are not facts, they are interpretations. The Minoans? The City States? The League of Corinth? The Empire of Alexander? Byzantium? Take your pick. Come back here and put it in the infobox if you have established, on the basis of multiple reliable sources, that any one of these is undisputable the first, with the same amount of factual certainty as the fact that the land area of Greece is 131,990 km² or that GDP was officially estimated at $356.258 billion in 2007. Those are things that go in infoboxes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking a rather narrow, legalistic view. Greece existed well before 1829 without ever having the meaning it has today. The existence of Greece was never contingent on the existence of a state bearing that name. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I totally agree, that's what I said. But the question is whether we should pick out any particular date in its history regarding the founding of such a political body, and put it in the infobox. We shouldn't, exactly because the historical existence of "Greece" was never contingent on any such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But since we've established that Greece does not necessarily refer to any particular political entity, we don't have to pick out a specific date. We can simply mention the first Greek civilisations. If Greece is good enough for Mycenaean Greece, it's good enough here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But that field of the infobox is about states, it's not supposed to be about civilisations or cultures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say that? In fact, browsing through country articles has given me completely the opposite impression. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's implied in the whole context of the infobox. The article as a whole may be about the historical/cultural/geographical concept, or at least include it in its coverage, but the box is solidly about the state and nothing else. It's about the entity that has an official name (Elliniki dhimokratia), a flag, a president, an anthem, a capital, statistical measures for GDP and population, etc. All this information applies to the modern state, not to the Minoans. And the field we are talking about is meant to represent when this entity was formed. It's fine to include pre-modern kingdoms if there is some degree of actual political continuity (like in the sense of international law where successor states are seen as continuing the sovereignty of their predecessors, even across revolutions or radical changes or regime), but cultural continuity alone is really stretching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that argument if it were applied uniformly. But the implication that "some degree of actual political continuity" applies to Old Great Bulgaria and Bulgaria but not to the Byzantine Empire and Greece is plainly absurd, as is the suggestion that the first historical mention of Lithuania or the Christianisation of Poland are more valid additions to a country infobox than Mycenaean Greece. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in the Bulgarian and Lithuanian case they've ignored the non-continuity, true enough, but at least they are dealing with an actual state that was actually called like that. The Polish case strikes me as pretty silly. But whatever, that's still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's do it better than them here, there's no need to imitate other people's follies. The field is supposed to be about establishments of "states", and like it or not, a state called Greece really never existed throughout history, before 1821. Everything relying on interpreting an earlier date as an establishment as such is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And please, please, please, always remember, it's not about whether we might agree that some earlier entity could be regarded as Greece; it's still only about whether anything about that is straightforward enough to go into a tabulated factsheet, where it can be expressed in a single word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

fixing unindent:

Why not 1975? There was no state (continuously) called the Hellenic Republic before then, after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but on this level, between 1821 and 1975, the thing about continuity of sovereignty really does apply, doesn't it? But sure, if you like we could add 1975 as yet another date of "establishment", of the current constitutional system. No objection to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it does. Sovereignty passed from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg to the Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the present format presenting "Modern statehood" is pretty good, we don't need to go into speculations of what "Greece" is or what "is" is, in current format one can see very clear when the modern state was established, as for ancient Greece that's a different story and should be explained in text not infobox. -- AdrianTM 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree..the fact that other articles are wrong doesn't mean that this one should be as well. Alexhard 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the history section is horrible how can we change it if we are not eventually allowed to it;;I tried and they revert it.Anyway it has too many details and junk information right now that must be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle of Pontus (talk • contribs)

Please do feel free to shorten it. The revert was just an (understandable) knee-jerk reaction by a routine vandalism patroller. When erasing larger chunks of text, just make sure you include an edit summary that shows you know what you're doing. Blanking of whole sections is otherwise something many vandals do, so you must understand if people react with suspicion. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK.Understood.Eagle of Pontus 20:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me that reverted -- edit summaries will keep me and the rest of us from reverting what seems at first glance to be vandalism -- at the very least it'll slow us down to look and see what you're doing. If you do something like blank lots of content, explain why, so we know. Sorry 'bout the revert, then. Gscshoyru 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am new and i didn't know the procedure.I reformed the section and i hope other people will be interested in the project.Anyway everyone shall keep in mind that the History of Greece can be found in details in the synonymous article.Here in the article about the Greek state we shall write the History section as short as we can so that we give the reader a general view, a summary .If he is interested then he can go the specific link provided and read everything we wants till the smallest detail.Eagle of Pontus 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're quite right about that. Actually, there even exists a guideline somewhere (lemme see: Wikipedia:Summary style) that has some good recommendations on how to do this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks.I will read it and see what i can do about this.I want my country's page to be informative (and to have a star i must admit Lol).Eagle of Pontus 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hellas currently redirects to Greece. The An attempt was made to change it to the disambig which was reverted with this note on Talk:Hellas:

This is, by far, the primary use. Should point to the article. If you dispute that, please go to talk:Greece, where the issue has been voted on in the past. Regards, sys < in 09:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in Talk:Greece and in both archives but I could not find any vote. Could someone please insert exact directions to where this was discussed (a direct link with html anchor maybe)? Thanks. -Wikianon 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the chapter "External links" there is a link to the "Prime Minister of Greece" web site. 1st. The link refers to the old website and it does not work anymore. The correct link is: http://www.primeminister.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4762&Itemid=89

2nd. The correct title is "Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic" NOT "Prime Minister of Greece"

Is it possible to correct these few mistakes? P.S. How could I provide you a brand new photo of the Prime Minister Dr Kostas Karamanlis in order to update the old one used in wikipedia?

Hi, thanks for pointing out the problem with the link. Sure, we can fix that. Actually, you'd be quite welcome to simply go and fix it yourself! :-) (the motto is WP:SOFIXIT, or, be BOLD.)

As for the image, if you have a good free image you can go to Special:Upload to upload it to the Wikipedia server, and then include it in an article with [[Image: ...]]. However, please be careful with copyright - we can accept images only if they have been validly released by the copyright holder under a free license. Feel free to ask me if you have further questions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry I didn't notice the article was "protected" from editing by newcomers, because of previous problems with had with vandalism. So, you were right you couldn't have fixed it yourself. I've lifted it now though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

it is worth of a star the article.What do you think; Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean an WP:FA? If you mean that, this article is still far from it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To "Eagle of Pontus" and "Yg...": before you keep reverting each other, PLEASE come here to discuss. You are both reasonable intelligent people, so talk it out, politely. Eagle, please get used to our discussion culture in this project; things like "LOL" and "what's wrong with you" have no place in a constructive civil discussion between good-faith contributors. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the invitation fut. perf . My main beef is that passages that were worked on for a long period were lost. On top of that , the other thing worrying me is that the original rationale for having a particularly long modern history section has been mislaid - that many west european readers will know particularly little about modern greek history relative to other european nations, so that its a useful supplement. I appreciate that saome people found it cumbersome, but I'm afraid that with the loss of detail the modern history section as it now is, with all the sketchy summaries without the context of before ( about the junta, about the civil war, about modern relations with turkey ) will just reinforce preconceptions about a haphazard, chaotic modern history for our country without filling in outsiders about the actual contexts ( most of them won't read the History of Greece wiki entries & others).

Yg78788 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• This supposed to be an encyclopedia and more importantly this is the page of Greek state.What someone should reade here are the outlines of Greek history as far the History section is concerned Economy as far economy section is concerned etc.If he wants details he can click in History of Greece and read details in Economy of Greece and so on.Tiny unnecessary details are not to be put in the summary of it's section.They make page longer more difficult to read and drop it's quality.European reader can just click in which section he wants for further details or open a book. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

that's the point - most people just won't, and this is all they'll see of modern greek history ( starting from a very low base already).

Yg78788 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bright Future wants to go to Greece one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinautry (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The great Mykonos photo currently covers several words in the "Economy" section -- at least, as I'm viewing it via Firefox. Could someone please force the text to wrap properly to the picture's left? (As a total Wikipedia novice, I read the section on images and then experimented on doing this myself, to no avail; I tried adding "|right" in the graphic's description, but this had no effect whatsoever.) --Vivliothykarios (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Arvanitas or people with Albanian origin minority in Greece, if they are not, why they are consider Greek ethnically  ? --Pelasgia (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Arvanites are considered Greek ethnically because they consider themselves to be Greek ethnically. It follows that they reject the notion that they are an ethnic minority. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote “An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry “ If they consider themselves Greek is this enough to consider them Greek ethnically?--Pelasgia (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See self-determination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean that they are not really ancestry Greek but by “self determination”, I am not sure of the relevance here although, they consider them to be Greek? --Pelasgia (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Arvanites taking in account their role not only in forming the modern Greek state , need some more explanation to be mention in the article--Pelasgia (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No,Kékrōps is not the self-determination, please see this anthropological studies of Theodoros K. Pitsios, Arvanites in the Peloponnese in the 1970s were physically indistinguishable from other Greek inhabitants of the same region. Which means that the others which came latter were already Hellens.--Shqiponja Pellasge (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

May that be because Albanians, Arvanites and Hellenes was all of pelasgic origin? After all after the Slavs' descend and the interbreeding with the local population there is no real racial or genetic distinction for any of the Balkan people. I seriously dought if there will be any detectable differences in the DNA of a Serb, a Greek, a Bulgarian an Albanian or even a Turk.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, Lukas. If "closely related to" is good enough for Aromanian, why not Arvanitika? Where is the evidence that Arvanitika is closer to Albanian than Aromanian is to Romanian? Why should they be treated any differently? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do what you should have done when you started these debates two years ago: Read the literature, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, calm down and spare us the personal attacks. The literature is not as unanimous as you suggest. Just as many sources describe Arvanitika as a separate but related language, and Aromanian as a "form of Romanian". Why the inconsistency? That's all I'm asking. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't, in the case of Arvanitika. They simply don't. You have never once in those two and half years brought a reliable source that did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources on the Arvanites' views regarding their own language, many cited by you yourself. And you have yet to answer my questions. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we still have not a single reliable source claiming that Arvanitika is not a dialect of Albanian. And as long as that is so, all other questions of yours are moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Aromanian and Arvanitika issue should be treated in one sentence, are they correlated? --Pelasgia (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The languages as such are not related, but the social status of these two groups is pretty similar, I guess. If you want to reword, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arvanites are bilingual and they also may speak only Greek (a part of the young generation).Thank you so much.--Arvanitia (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You must know that?!Proto –Arvanitika is the oldest language of Hellenes.We Arvanites are the ethnic Greek and no malaka can deny that--Arvanitia (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? The Greek language is the oldest language of the Hellenes (and the oldest language in the world, actually), attested since the fifteenth century BC and unrelated to Arvanitika, which appeared in Greece during the Middle Ages. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek language is the oldest I agree with you 100% and so is Arvanitika Then patriotis please search and see some ancient Greek writings translated with Arvanitika!--Arvanitia (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Arvanitika derives from the same proto-language as modern Tosk Albanian. Most linguists prefer to call it an Albanian dialect (see above), perhaps out of laziness or disregard for the Arvanites' feelings, but none has posited the theory that it is directly related to Greek, much less its ancestor! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No our Arvanitika is not Albanian is the most ancient Greek I have read many our authors say this, we are ethnic Hellenes, a DNA study can verify that--Arvanitia (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Αν πιστεύετε ότι οι έλληνες αρβανίτες δεν είναι έλληνες τότε γιατι δεν μας φέρνετε μια ανάλυση του DNA σας για να μας αποδείξετε ότι εσείς είστε πράγματι έλληνας. Δεν θα σας στο συμβούλευα προσωπικά να το κάνετε γιατι το αποτέλεσμα της αναλύσεως θα είναι ιδιαιτέρως δυσάρεστο ως πρός την προσέγγισή σας περί ελληνικότητος.--Arvanitia (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Arvanites are ethnic Hellenes but not on account of Arvanitika. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Arvanitika is our native Epirotic language the oldest language of Hellenes, If we are ethnic Greek so it is and our language. Old ancient Greek inscription can be translated only with Arvanitika. This is our country and we are not minority, we refuse to be call minority. Even we do not agree to be treated in minority section, think about?!--Arvanitia (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable figures about the number of Arvanites in Greece today and their exact number is unknown (no official data exist for ethnicity in Greece)[1]. --Shqiponja Pellasge (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we be clear enough here: Arvanites are autochthones in Greece and they are majority ethnically in to day Greece. They are not minority even numerically in Greece. According the standard of ethnicity, heritage, traditions, genetic background they are the authentic Hellenes--Besa Arvanon (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Piss off. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop offending me, this belong to weak, prove the opposite but do not write lies in the main article Greece.You filled all the word with your lies --Besa Arvanon (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking for Arvanitika is called also Arberishte, Albanian or tosk Albanian also some dialect are as in Gege Albanian (Tsakonian or Peloponnesus Language), Doric Greek. Epirotika, the language of Attica , the language of Pelasgians , the oldest language of GreeksSince we are talking for Arvanitika is called also Arberishte, Albanian or tosk Albanian also some dialect are as in Gege Albanian (Tsakonian or Peloponnesus Language), Doric Greek. Epirotika, the language of Attica , the language of Pelasgians , the oldest language of Greeks--Besa Arvanon (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you banned user PIRRO BURRI by any chance? You sounds a lot like him. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish i was him to deal with some like you --Besa Arvanon (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Arvanitika and epirotic language are synonyms and is nothing to dispute here , this is well sourced , in case that you want not to mention certain things is OK with me , but we are her to write the history as it is and not to write as we like.

‘’ Marin Barleti The story of life and deeds of Skanderbeg, the prince of Epirotes. Rome 1506-1510’’

‘’Pjeter Bogdani Cuneus ProphetarumCvnevs prophetarvm de Christo salvatore mvndi et eivs evangelica veritate, italice et epirotice contexta, et in duas partes diuisa a Petro Bogdano Macedone, Sacr. Congr. de Prop. Fide alvmno, Philosophiae & Sacrae Theologiae Doctore, olim Episcopo Scodrensi & Administratore Antibarensi, nunc vero Archiepiscopo Scvporvm ac totivs regni Serviae Administratore" (The Band of the Prophets Concerning Christ, Saviour of the World and his Gospel Truth, edited in Italian and Epirotic and divided into two parts by Pjetër Bogdani of Macedonia, student of the Holy Congregation of the Propaganda Fide, doctor of philosophy and holy theology, formerly Bishop of Shkodra and Administrator of Antivari and now Archbishop of Skopje and Administrator of all the Kingdom of Serbia) (The Band of the Prophets)”Albanian Academy of Science Tirane 2005’’

‘’Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Correspondence on the Albanian Language1705-1715 [2]’’. --Besa Arvanon (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote “Pyrrhus (2) of Epirus (319–272 BC), most famous of the Molossian kings, chief architect of a large, powerful, and Hellenized Epirote state (see hellenism), and builder of the great theatre at Dodona. Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.”

I very much contest you view about the conection of Albania with Epirus because from this reference the Epirus does not exists ,it is Hellenize--Aspetus (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They were the original Greeks,[3]

You are a sock puppet.Megistias (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Epirotes were Greeks since prehistory [4]Margalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007).Prehistoric Greece 2000 BC,ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161) Megistias (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On the big map in the info box to the right. I'll fix it, if you give me a request at my talk page. Respectfully, Tourskin (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a new map showing the Aegean Islands and Rhodes. Tourskin (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For your next upload-revision, you should include Kastelorizo on the map. It's always added as an extra square in greek maps and it's missing here. It may be small but it's still Greece.Arheos (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate any constructive thought for the following edit in minority section :

It is very difficult to obtain direct evidence how much multilingual Greece is and there are evidence of certain distortion in academic research on this topic.

Reference: Modern Greece has always been a multilingual country. Accurate information on how multilingual it is very difficult to obtain: no Greek census since 1951 has included questions about language. There has also been a certain distortion in some of the academic research on this topic brought about by anti-minority Greek nationalism. Source Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics.Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 153.Dodona--Burra (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Something on the basis of this reference might work, I guess. For one thing, I can confirm this is a reliable source, a highly respected one in fact. Can you please clarify who is the author of that particular article? The book is a collection of many articles by different authors. (My guess is it could be Trudgill, from the sound of it. We've already used him extensively in our coverage of minority linguistic matters.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trudgill is used as reference often but not in this particular one I suppose Dodona --Burra (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing against this is that it's not actual info it sounds more like a disclaimer, I don't think we need to add this kind of info in Wikipedia articles. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is info and it is sourced, it could be known but never was claimed !Dodona --Burra (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it adds any information to the article, it's a kind of disclaimer that's not needed, and as far the "Modern Greece has always been a multilingual country" Any country is multilingual to a degree, this doesn't bring any new info, and what "multilingual" is supposed to mean exactly, that's a very fuzzy concept. -- AdrianTM (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The languages spoken in to day Greece it is connected with minorities that exist there and the policies toward these minorities, like academic research to this point.Dodona --Burra (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add further to my point the reference and add to previews statements:

Reference :In 1994, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights issued a report extremely critical of the Greek states treatment of minorities (see The Guardian May 12)

Source : Peter Trudgill / Daniel Schreier, Greece and Cyprus / Griechenlandc und Zypern Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 153. Copyright © 2006. Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers).Dodona --Burra (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's the purpose of what Burra wrote?As in any country many languages of minorities as spoken -between themselves- parallel to the Greek language of the native population.Nigerians speak Nigerian and Greek, Albanians Albanian and Greek etc.Greeks make up more than 90% of the permanent population so none of these languages is official as migrants are also dispersed through the country.We could say Pontic Greek dialect or Arvanitika or Vlachika or Slavic but they are not spoken except from pretty tiny percent of the citizens.So again what are we talking about?What's the meaning of Burra post? Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto: Ελευθερία ή θάνατος [Eleftheria i thanatos] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (transliteration) "Freedom or Death"

Anthem: Ύμνος εις την Ελευθερίαν Ýmnos eis tīn Eleutherían Hymn to Liberty1

How is the Greek "ευ" supposed to be transliterated, as "ef"/"ev" or as "eu"? Two conflicting systems are used in the infobox for ελευθερία(ν). It would be nice if a suitable system could be agreed on to be used uniformly throughout this and other articles.Dolavon (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we change the word liberty with the word freedom?they have completely different meanings and certainly not the one implied in the motto and in the hymn Wrcrack (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrcrack (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw in the religion section "The ancient Greek religion has also reappeared,[42] with approximately 2,000 adherents, comprising 0.02% of the general population.[43] Some of these Greek religionists have made claims that they are not reconstructionists but are just people coming out of the closet.[44]"

Only one of these links (the US state department) is alive. This needs to be cleaned up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchreader (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to add a section 'Greeks in the world'. Over 50% of Greeks live outside of Greece as residents. This is a nice fact to show off to the world, don't you think? There are plenty of valid references for a section like this. What are your opinions? 213.97.51.67 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is covered at Greeks, and in more detail at Greek diaspora. Since Greeks outside Greece are, by definition, not in Greece, they don't belong in the Greece article, which is about the country, not the ethnic group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. [5]. There is, of course, no disambiguation problem. The topic domain "Slavic" is already explicitly named in that very sentence, a few words earlier. No reader could possibly misconstrue that phrase as referring to Greek Macedonian. Avg is again, as so often, abusing the notion of disambiguation as a magic badge allowing him to push terminology he doesn't like out of topic domains that Greeks might consider their home turf, just so as not to touch on their oh so precious national sensitivities. That is not what disambiguation is about, and that's also not what MOSMAC is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see then what WP:MOSMAC "is about":

Naming conventions (country language)

* Macedonian can be used where the context is limited to the country, and there is no need for disambiguation.

* Macedonian Slavic or Slavic Macedonian in articles where there is need for disambiguation with the Greek dialects of the Greek Macedonians and/or Ancient Macedonians.

* The term "Macedonian branch of the South Slavic languages" is appropriate in articles on linguistic issues where other languages are also classified in similar terms.

Need I say more? Fut. Perf. should first check whether he has become overzealous in his quest to fight Greek "nationalism".--Avg (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please mentally underline where there is a need for disambiguation. There isn't here. Your mistake is that you want legalistic rules defining whole articles as off-limits for this or that terminology, and that you treat the whole thing as an issue of a political tug-of-war. A careful and responsible encyclopedia writer will, in contrast to this, evaluate individual textual passages, always keeping concrete practical needs of readers uppermost in their mind. Your efforts are all about policing your perceived POV territory. My efforts are about writing an encyclopedia for its readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see the big picture then, what is better for an encyclopaedia, to label a contemporary Slavic dialect "Macedonian" leaving the reader to assume this is the only "Macedonian" dialect that exists, or actually inform the reader that there are in fact more than one "Macedonian" dialects? On your other comment, I readily admit that I'm constantly monitoring Macedonia related articles for what I consider blatant POV pushing and I know that so are you. And in my book , monopolisation of the name Macedonia is a case of blatant POV pushing.--Avg (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Avg, why are you wasting your time? Can't you find something (anything) more productive to do? It already says it in the same sentence that they are a Slavic speaking group. Polibiush (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Look who's speaking about being productive. A look at your "contributions" to this project says it all.--Avg (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See, this is precisely the misunderstanding of what "disambiguation" is about. I think I tried to explain the same thing to Niko some other time. Disambiguation is exclusively about preventing the reader from thinking we mean X where in fact we mean Y. It is not, and should not be, about reminding the reader that X also exists. X is completely off topic in that passage, and its existence simply has no bearing on what that sentence is meant to do. Whether readers know or care or should know or should care about the existence of X is irrelevant, at that point. Talking about Y without also reminding the reader of X is not "monopolizing" anything, it is just sticking to the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the rest is your personal interpretation. Readers should decide by themselves what part of the information find relevant or interesting, we shouldn't pre-decide for them. Someone who wants to learn about Y, clearly has to be shown what Y is AND what Y isn't. --Avg (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suspect the most interesting part here is what Macedonian isn't. To quote a third party user in a discussion about FYROM's article name: "the only reason half the world has even heard about Macedonia or ROM or FYROM or fYROM or TheartistformerlyknownasPrince is because of this naming controversy. Not including its UN name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the first paragraph would be ignoring the single most interesting thing about the country." Well, unless you are a linguist, that is! :-) NikoSilver 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the passage is not for people to learn about Y either. The only thing the passage needs to do is to identify Y. Find the most common, most accessible standard term that helps the reader understand we mean Y. We aren't even saying anything more about Y, neither about what it is nor what it isn't. Stick to the topic. Stop loading up things with baggage that doesn't belong. – As for the "let them decide by themselves what part of the information they find relevant" etc., that's plainly nonsense. We are writing, folks. Writing a text. Writing texts is all about making decision what's relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, this [6] has, just for the sake of getting the offensive name ideologically neutralised by slapping the other term as close to it as possible, lost a good deal of the actual information of the sentence: namely, the opposition between classificatory linguistic description and local naming. Those are two different things and were therefore deliberately kept in separate clauses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was the part that is "loading up" like "baggage that doesn't belong". :-) Point taken. But seriously, can we all please strive to find a non-provocative and simultaneously scientifically accurate solution for the text? It mustn't be so difficult, and the article will improve. After all, we're writing! :-) NikoSilver 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. please, stop vandalizing the page with your anti-Greek POV. The same goes for everyone else. Thank you. 87.219.84.68 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, be so kind to refrain from posting anti-Greek POV. You know who you are. Also, please be so kind to remove the minorities section, it's total separatist POV. 87.219.84.68 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, separatist. The Aromanians definitely want to set up six enclaves for themselves. And the Arvanites are going to declare the Republic of Attica. Don't forget the State of the Turks and Pomaks either. Not to mention the Grand Duchy of Sephardia or the Kingdom of Dopia. BalkanFever 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historically, there have of course been the externally sponsored "separatist" movements: the Principality of Pindus, the Republic of Gumuljina, United Macedonia etc. I guess the point anon. was trying to make is that the minorities, real or imagined, have been exploited politically by outsiders in the past in order to promote territorial and other claims against Greece. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that we went over it a million times that they were linguistic minorities. BalkanFever 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. Although I understand the concerns raised above, they do not justify the section's removal. The Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones are among the most patriotic Greeks and deserve a special mention regardless of the attempts by other countries to project a non-Greek identity onto them. This article is about Greece, after all, not what other countries think about its people. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They also deserve a mention because they are linguistic minorities - regardless of how Greek they are in any other aspect. BalkanFever 06:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We agree that they deserve a mention; let's leave it at that. We know very well why you might want them mentioned, but that isn't reason enough to exclude them. This isn't about you, it's about Greece and them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. And they are linguistic minorities in Greece. They are not mentioned for their patriotism, because their patriotism doesn't make them a minority. Their (other) languages do. My ulterior motive (if I do indeed have one) is of course irrelevant. BalkanFever 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I said. My point is that their patriotism neutralizes anyone else's ulterior motives, so excluding them on the basis of the latter is unfounded. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The map posted with the linguistic minorities is erroneous and misleading. To have such a wide area in Sterea Ellada and Peloponese, painted green for arvanitika speaking minorities is to assume that there is a well spread out and considerable minority there, while in reality there are only a few thousand people that are very concentrated in parts of the map. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia link. 1) I never said or implied that UN dictates or should dictate anything in wp. 2) The above is also a wikilink albeit a redirect (obviously). 3) If the current "position" (Wikilink) of this country dictates the universal linkification then every mention of it, in articles, lists, templates and whatnot, should be under that wikilink i.e. Republic of Macedonia. It has been discussed to death, I know, but please do not try to make into something else an honest edit in which I' ve tried to demonstrate that this appellation (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) is not, by any real or imaginary measure, a nationalistic edit (even if it is, allegedly, intented as one by some editors or, allegedly, perceived as one by some readers). / LapisExCoelis (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it is perfectly permissible under WP:MOSMAC: "All wikilinks to the country should point to Republic of Macedonia directly or indirectly (through a valid redirect). You can either use a pipe (the | symbol) to direct a wikilink at this article, e.g.: [[Republic of Macedonia|former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]], or use the redirect itself, e.g.: [[former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]], provided that the latter redirects to the page for the country." ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to some places like Google Maps, Microsoft maps and so on, the region has lately been renamed to simply 'Eastern Macedonia', removing any Thracian indication, upon agreement with the Turkish government, which supports the Greek position on the FYROM issue. Please, could anyone confirm that and provided trustful references? 87.219.85.234 (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Both are inaccurate.There the administrative region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace indeed while Turkey doesn't support Greece on the name dispute with FYROM as the fact that they have recognized them as Macedonia points out.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, if you do not have any official information from the Green Ministry of Internal affairs, do not write anything about minorities in Greece. Any information not coming directly from the goverment cannot be accepted as reliable and violates the wikipedia policy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.85.171 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some references, and your blanking of the section is considered vandalism. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We take our information not from government officials, we take it from academic studies by independent scholars. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for our content policies. If you have factual issues about the contents of that particular map, you may want to join the discussion on Talk:Minorities in Greece. There is consensus that a map of this type is needed for this article. Factual correctness of details can still be discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah guys, he's right. Nevertheless, you should also add a 'Greek Minorities in the world' section, in order to balance that. For a Greek nationalist point of view, he's completely right. The fact that the source is French and not Greek is already a dubious source. No one but the Greeks know what happens in their country. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The map about minorities is highly confusing. The Turkish linguistic minority might represent 50% of the areas colored. The slavic might represent 0.5% of the area colored. The aromanian 10%. The Albanian 0.1%. There has to be a specific note clarifying that. I really don't understand the point of this map in the first page, when it is a well known fact and described in the article that these populations are 1-2% in total. It gives a highly false impression and is not indicative of the homogeneity of Greece, which is one of its defining characteristics in comparison with other European states. So, from an encyclopedic point of view, the map is misleading. If the note is not added I will remove the map for the aforementioned arguments Energon (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we'd all love a map that is as correct as possible. The problem is that the Greek census don't include minority languages, and that's why we don't have precise definitions. The map, I would like to point out, and your threat to remove it violates quite a few Wikipedia policies. Don't assume ownership of articles. JdeJ (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when the Vlachs are a minority? With all this anti-Greek stuff you'll probably just force them to forget their language for the sake of unity...minority-creationism at his best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hizero (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Minorities

The article about minorities in Greece is trully evocable! Since no treaty or The greek government don't recognise most of the "minorities" that have been mentioned I strongly suggest you reformed that part of the article. I would love to hear why should vlachs be recognised as an ethnic minority, when every vlach union of Greece refuses to be recognised as a minority! Be serious and don't insult all these people.Ignorants shouldn't be left to write in wikipedia any of these stupid accusation against greek state. Helsinki and curly hair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.34.42 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the term "minority" as used in this article, which is in no way an "accusation". And please obey Wikipedias civility rules: don't call your fellow-editors "ignorants". --Macrakis (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to insult anyone.The article says:

The lack of official recognition of any minority other than the Muslims of Thrace has attracted criticism from the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights.

What should be done by the government?Force people to claim an official recognition of being a minority?

My grandparents come from Serres and can speak(but they don't)a little Bulgarian, because they were forced to learn the language in 1942(when Bulgarians invaded Macedonia after Hitler).

And now I can see that people like them are treated like they were a minority in their country!!!Where did you find that Slavic minority in Serres and Thessaloniki?

There are a few Slavic(fyromian) speaking people at northern parts of west Macedonia that they have not been recognised as minority whereas they should be. Do you know why?The government accepts to recog. them, but not as Macedonians.Because Macedonians are considered all residents of Macedonia including greeeks...--Geotol (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words. They are Bulgarians. Or Serbians. To be Macedonian you have to be Greek first. The same way, you have to be Christian Orthodox to be Greek. It's a simple equation any mind would understand. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article about the minorities in Greece should change. The official Greek position is that there is no Macedonian ethnicity nor a Macedonian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIMISM2008 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority Map

The “Greece linguistic minorities” map is absolutely rubbish. The external source where it comes from dose not state the academic sources on witch the map is based on. This hilarious map that invents linguistic minorities shall be replaced by the “Linguistic map of Europe” that is used in various occasions by wikipedia when referring to ethnic and linguistic groups of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.bat (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That hilarious "minority" map refers to FYROM as "Republic of Macedonia". Ok, do your nice minority game-who cares about the accuracy of the wiki articles- but at least try to have a conformity since in this article the state is called FYROM. Now, have a nice day from one of the 5 million Arvanites of Attiki and btw, since most of those minorities are found across Greece don't hesitate to paint all the map-because actually probably are more Arvanites in Macedonia due to internal immigration than the mentioned ghost-minorities which fortunately are blessed with many net-protectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hizero (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sources provided in wikipedia are 0% reliable as they do not come from the Greek government, the European Union or the United Nations. Adding to the beginning of the phrases that these institutions have never said anything about that and that all about the minorities are, for now, pure speculations, would clear up the ideas. 87.219.85.234 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough with discussing and let's see some action. FYROM is the correct term. Someone correct it. Someone responsible. Also there is no Macedonian language. There is the language the people of FYROM claim to speak. And although minorities is stated, it is not stated clearly enough. It seems as if half of Macedonia speaks a Slavic language. Seriously, go to the Macedonian coutnryside, open your ears and you shall hear Greek. Isn't anyone responsible for protecting this article from vandalism! 79.103.188.196 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The map should be changed somehow in order to clear any doubts that in all colored areas, everyone speaks Greece and that there are people who do not speak any of the minorities languages. The idea depicted in the map is far too vague and hardly represents reality. Using terms such as 'it is thought' or 'it is believed that' would increase the accuracy and decrease the chance of error, as there are no official sources on the issue from Greece, the European Union, NATO or the United Nations. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am taking this ridiculous map out, clear and simple. We should do all the people visiting here a favor and not have them disinformed and mislead. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isimaiak (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia won't be the place to reach consensus about ethnic groups in Europe and everybody can claim whatever they want. The source of this map is non reliable, non scientific as it includes Pontic as a language, whereas it is common knowledge that Pontic is a Greek dialect. But still, the map which appears in the article does not appear in the cited webpage. That is absolutely ridiculous and violates even Wikipedia standards. Who can take a map from a webpage, manipulate it and then publish his own creation with a citation? In http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Greece there is no dialect labeled as Macedonian. But of course, you can create your own map, upload it on your webpage and then refer to it in wikipedia...

As this is a page on Greece, I would like to delete from the page the sentence on Cypriot cuisine. The quote is "It must be noted however, that Greek cuisine difers widely from different parts of the mainland and from Island to Island. Cyprus in particular, has many delicacies that are native to it alone, such as grilled Halloumi and Louvi." The second sentence should be removed as Cyprus is not a part of Greece. Any objections? Svyatoslav (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Full objections. Cyprus is Greek, even if not part of Greece. Don't believe me? Tell me what language they talk or go ask them... Any objections? 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And in Texas they speak English, do you think the cuisine of Texas should be included under cuisine at the England article. This article is on the country Greece, and Cyprus is not a part of that country. JdeJ (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop yelling and trolling already. They have Greek flags all around the country and if you ask them about their nationality they will say GREEK or GREEK-CYPRIOT. Please, just stop already with your lies. What Texas does is obviously out of the question here. As if we cared. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking about trolling and yelling AdrianTM (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Greece, the country--the Hellenic Republic to be formal--and not about Greeks in general. Cyprus is an independent country and not part of Greece, even if it is largely populated by Greek Orthodox speakers of Greek. You can also find lots of Greek cuisine and Greek flags in Astoria, Queens. The Greeks article and the Greek cuisine article (which explicitly says it is about the cuisine of Greece and the Greeks) are another matter. --Macrakis (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Greek Pontian language does not show up in the minorities map. It should be covering the most of the Greek Macedonia, some part of Albania, some part of FYROM and some part of Bulgaria. It is overlapping with many other minority languages in the map. Why is it not the Greek Pontian language shown in the map? Is it not a minority language? 87.219.85.149 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the reference 35 (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=MK&seq=10), which has been used to create the minority map, you will notice that the pontic greec language overlaps almost everything. So please, correct the map already with the pontic language. Additionally, you should change the deep color for the grayed one, as it is not that in the whole region everyone speaks those languages, but just a few people. The map as it is right now in wikipedia is wrong compared to the original source and contains a biased POV, as clearly can be seen when compared with the original source. So, things to be done:

1) Change the deep color of languages to grayed.
2) Add the pontic language in the map as predominant minority language in the whole northern Greece and parts of Athens and surroundings.
3) As seen in the sources, whereas the current minority languages are spoken by some hundreds or a few thousands, the Pontic Greek language is being spoken according to the sources in this article to up to 220 000 inside Greece and 330 000 in the whole world. Thus, this needs to be clearly remarked in the map, using lighter intensity for less spoken languages and stronger intensity for more spoken languages.
4) Split the minority section to a new article, just like the article in Turkey, given the fact that there needs to be homogeneity through articles.


Additional sources:
1. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=GR
2. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=MK&seq=10
3. http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rog3=GR&rop3=108121
4. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pnt
5. The Pontic Dialect: A Corrupt Version of Ancient Greek? MACKRIDGE Journal of Refugee Studies.1991; 4: 335-339
6. http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/po/pontic_greeks.htm


87.219.85.248 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek Pontian is not a language is a dialect of Greek therefore people who speak a dialect of Greek cannot be considered "minority" because they are not a different nationality. I'd also appreciate if people would sign with their username because otherwise is highly suspect that these edits are done by blocked users. I usually don't respond to anonymous editors, I responded here only to counter the irrational point that a dialect should be represented as a "minority". -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones don't consider themselves to be "minorities" or "different nationalities" either, but their languages are mentioned. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really comparable. A Pontian Greek still speaks Greek, right? An Aromanian, Arvanite or Macedonian Slav may feel every bit as Greek as a Pontian Greek, but the Aromanian, Arvantive or Macedonian Slavic language aren't Greek. For some reason, there seems to be a lot of confusion in Greece over what minorities mean. Regarding oneself as being Greek has nothing at all to do with being a minority, most Catalans regard themselves as Spaniards, Ticinos regard themselves as Swiss, Walloons regard themselves as Belgians and so on. JdeJ (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's not really comparable. The groups I mentioned consider themselves to be ethnically Greek, not merely citizens of Greece. And yes, a Pontian still speaks Greek, as does an Aromanian, an Arvanite or a Slavophone; I doubt there are any non-Greek-speaking monoglots left. The reality is that Pontic is not intelligible to speakers of standard Greek, so to the average Greek it might as well be Aromanian. I really don't think there's any harm in mentioning it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The reality is that Pontic is not intelligible to speakers of standard Greek, so to the average Greek it might as well be Aromanian." What?! Is that really the case? from Pontic Greek article I got the impression that the differences are really small some sound changes, while Aromanian is a Latin language, the difference is huge. In any case Aromanian is not a dialect of Greek whle Pontic Greek is a dialect of Greek, it's just saying that speakers of poor parts of London or England are a minority because they speak a different dialect of English than the "standard" one. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing language with minority status. The Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones do speak non-Greek languages but do not consider themselves to be ethnic minorities. The only real difference between them and the Pontians is that the latter happen to speak a language that derives from Koine Greek, hence its classification as a "dialect" of modern Greek. Pontic and standard Greek are mutually unintelligible, and the omission of that fact from Pontic Greek merely reflects the weakness of that article. It may seem strange to a foreigner, but the Pontians are not considered to be any more Greek than the others. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and with all respect, what seems strange to foreigners is how unaware many Greeks are about minority situations in Europe. What's the difference between an Aromanian in Greece, a Galician in Spain, a Walloon in Belgium or a Ticino in Swiss? I see no difference at all, all speak other languages than the main one in the country where they live. JdeJ (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the difference is their ethnic self-identification. The Galician people are an "ethnic group or nationality" according to the relevant article; the Vlachs in Greece are not, or at least that's not how they view themselves. As for the Walloons or Ticinesi, there is no such thing as a Belgian or Swiss ethnicity with which they could identify, so they have no choice but to be "minorities". In fact, this has nothing to do with the Greeks' lack of awareness, but rather with foreigners' tendency to equate rather incomparable situations. You may see no difference at all, but the difference is there. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As it has been stated before, the minorities section is about languages, not nationalities. So, either we remove every single bit of Arvanites, Armonanian and so on from the map or we add the Pontians as well. And again, let me insist that, we have to follow NPOV, thus have to gray out all the current areas of the map. Additionally, the current map is a fake version of the original one. Please, eveyone compare the two maps, the source and the one we have right now and you will see the differences very easily. The current map seems more to me like a nationalist POV from users like AdrianTM, who, by the way, vandalized this disussion page by removing many discussion points, which I had to revert. You have already shown who you are AdrianTM, so please refrain from more nationalist POV from your side. We want things here to follow NPOV.

In response to JdeJ, first, either we rename the minorities section to language minorities as there are no nationalities or we simply remove all the painted zones of people who consider themselves Greek. That means that Arvanites and so on go off the map. Second, as the text clearly states that Arvanitic and so on are simply language minorities, Pontic Greek has to be added by force.

In conclussion, I think that the points are very clear. Pontic Greek is a minority language the same as Arvanitic. Second, Arvanites are ethnically Greek, this cannot be split into an ethnic minority. So, please proceed with the changes already and follow the NPOV. The sources are clear, reliable and I have to remark yet again that the map we currently have is a bad copy which is omitting lots of details that are provided in the source map.
87.219.85.248 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As I explained before Pontic Greek is a dialect not a language. AdrianTM (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, don't appoint yourself the jugdge of what should be written and what shouldn't. I don't mind adding Pontic Greek to the map, but the please provide sources that Pontic Greek is a separate language from Greek. JdeJ (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I am writting? The source of minority languages in wikipedia does not match at all the one from the source. I told you what is wrong and you are still stubborn and do not want to understand it, either that, or you do understand it but your nationalist POV does not allow it to go further. The Pontic Greek language is not a dialect of modern Greek, it's a completely different language. Both are derived from the ancient Greek. Please, read the sources I gave you. Now, split ethnic minorities from language minorities. Only slavs (I even wonder if they really do, but I let that up to you) might consider themselves ethnic minority. The rest have clearly stated their Greek nationhood. IF you want a language map, then again, pontic Greek has to be added as per sources and the zones have to be specified and cleared out. I do not know who you are, but you are obviously meddling into the Greek affairs with seemingly evil intentions. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, please discuss the issues not the person, otherwise I guarantee you'll be out of Wikipedia with or without an account. Also, please don't accuse people of nationalism, you have no clue what is the nationalities of people who discuss nor is that relevant, please discuss the issue, the issue here is that Pontic Green is a dialect not a language. Period. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon. and his threats notwithstanding, things are not so black-and-white. To his credit, he has actually cited Ethnologue and other sources which treat Pontic as a separate language due to its unintelligibility vis-à-vis standard Greek, so there is some degree of debate surrounding the issue which shouldn't be dismissed outright. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, consider splitting the section, as it is mixing concepts and can lead to confussion. Please, also take in consideration that people that can be deported, that is, they do not behold Greek nationality, cannot be considered a resident minority. Otherwise, we should have to add 1 million Germans as minority here, as they come every summer around the same places. 87.219.85.149 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please anyone ,also at least 5 millions Arvanites in Greece that speak Arvanitika and Greek are not minority--Alexi Lata (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you a sock or what? I see comments from anonymous IP and then from new account that doesn't have any other edits, this is very suspect. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm clean here. I have a static IP address range but never meant to register. And I won't, for now. 87.219.85.248 (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The section of minority is a disaster, Arvanites are not a minority and their main land Epirus it can not be scant of them--Alexi Lata (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PIRRO BURRI? Can anyone open a sock check? (why I don't do it? I'm too lazy and Wikipedia forms to tiresome for me) -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in November, the objections to the reverts for the original history section still stand. There are plenty of country pages with longer introductory sections, and the main rationale for one here - that many western european readers will be particularly unfamiliar with modern greek history, so that a longer opening section is particularly useful, still apllies too. What the compressed version has done, unintentionally, is to cast modern greek history simply as one of cursorily described confict, which, instead of encouraging people to find out more ,( part of the purpose of wikipedia ) may simply reinforce stereotypes and preconceptions about the modern history of our country . People may find the original section cumbersome, but its length isn't exceptional among country pages, and serves a particular purpose for readers *outside * greece. I know that people may also feel that these partly completed descriptions are also made unnecessary by the links to history articles, but the reality is that most people landing on this page will simply not read all the sub-articles.

Yg78788 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. There was a solid consensus that the section was too long and needed reshaping. You can't just go back on that and return the work of several months to the previous version that nobody except you liked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut. perf, what I can see in the autumn discussion, and on the previous revert last year, is an objection from yiannismarou, after which the section was cut. That doesn't seem to prove a solid consensus to me, and I don't think there's anything unreasonable about the objections. I can't find a sequence of contributions proving that everyone else agreed, and I'm happy to discuss the changes with Yiannis or anyone else.

Yg78788 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

just on the topic of reverted edits, I tried to avoid that as far as possible, by reverting to a revision which was one of the furthest advanced of the original collection. Obviously the next wave of edits of the smaller section there's been since are separate.

Yg78788 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

clap clap clap i see you messed up the history section congrats! There is a seperate artcile for the whole history of Greece you know.What you did is a lengthy unnecessary graphic rape of the history section.It was already a B rated page, now it's sth between stub and start-class. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

come off it  ; I've just restored a breakdown that was in place much longer than the recent changes, without making any of my own additions at all . You also haven't addressed my point ; many fewer people will read that History of Greece page and others like it than will arrive at the main page . Hence, other national pages have also opted for summaries that aren't cursory. Look at the Italy page, for instance ; ain introductory history section that's actually far longer :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

That presumably hasn't been raised as a criterion for demoting that article and others like it , so why should it be in relation to the Greece page ?

Yg78788 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• In case you didn't notice Italy is an article not featured in contrast for example to Japan, India or Pakistan who have summed history sections and are featured.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is provocative, and there are no actual references on academic research… probably this is a hoax… it’s like mapping up the hole New York as Chinese speaking and suggest that you did so because there is a China Town in New York…. Jesus… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.bat (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

the minorities map gives the impression that most people in attica speak arvanitic, which isn't true. pov going on ?

5762O5 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good point, that's the impression the map gives and I doubt it's true. The only explanation that I see is that the map shows where the specific minorities are concentrated, it doesn't show where the minorities are a majority of the local population, if that's the case the map is probably right even if some people might misinterpret it. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The map shows exactly what it says in the caption. "Some people" might misinterpret it? Sure. Exactly one person keeps misinterpreting it. But that person has been setting off a fireworks of throwaway single-purpose sockpuppets bringing forward this complaint in ever new forms for several weeks now. I've stopped responding to them after the first day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sockpuppetry got really bad lately, we should probably ignore people who just created an account and jump immediately into POV type of discussions. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a fair point would be that a mixed population ( linguistically, ethnically etc) , is usually denoted on maps with one colour with lines going through it, or vice versa etc . Having one colour on the map does often get used to indicate the dominance of one group. I'll try and find some other examples from wiki pages to have a look and compare.

Yg78788 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered doing that when we were discussing the map on Talk:Minorities in Greece some weeks back. My reasons for not doing it in the end were threefold: First, it's difficult to do technically in the software I was using; second, it would make the map visually less easy to read, and third, it would not really add any extra information. Explicitly marking areas as mixed makes sense only if mixed areas actually contrast with areas that are not mixed. But there are no such areas. There is no "purely" Arvanitic region to contrast a "mixed" Arvanitic region with; Greek is everywhere. Why waste color coding on a piece of information that is not contrastive? The ubiquitous presence of Greek can easily be described in the map caption or in the surrounding text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

how will people know greek is everywhere ?

why does the map say " republic of macedonia " on it when the UN doesn't recognise that name ?

5762O5 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

People will know because they will read what's written. That's why they are called readers.

The country is called like that because that's its name. We call things by their names here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

well that's clear POV to start with , as that isn't its UN name. as the map is now, it'll be used by lots of nationalist sources to 'prove' those are the majorities in those areas, as you know I expect.

5762O5 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How would I know what you expect? Ah, I take it you are implying you are the same editor as all the ones before. Which means you have just admitted to sockpuppetry, and I'm gonna block you now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how single purpose accounts like this one: Special:Contributions/5762O5 or this one Special:Contributions/Nicholas.bat are allowed on Wikipedia to do POV warring, they should be blocked outright. Any new account that comes to edit a protected page and push the same POV as people who were banned before is highly suspect of sockpuppetry and should be checked automatically (if possible). -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, these are almost certainly socks. I actually blocked them, although that's sort of on the margin of legality, since I'm not "uninvolved" in the dispute. I might be best to get some outside admins to look into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... it helps if you are a rouge admin :D You get mark for extra-rougeness this time. Good work, thanks! man with one red shoe (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I got an Arbitrator wagging their finger at me on IRC too, so I'd better head over to WP:SSP and do my civic duty... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks and puppets aside, the name to use on the map, for the countries, since there is a naming dispute, should be the one that is least offending/disrespectful to most of the parties involved. "FYROM" is acceptable by the parties involved and is the least offending/disrespectful to them, whereas "Rep. of Macedonia" isn't. Let's not go to UN, constitutional, or "english page" type arguments over this and if things were that simple, we'd call everything by it's name. Only, they aren't and we don't know the name yet.Arheos (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but WP:MOSMAC specifically states that Greece-related articles are a special case. The long-standing status-quo has been that all references to the country in Greece-related articles are by its UN name, exactly as we do in the lead paragraph. --   Avg    23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, as you bloody well know, and no, as long as I'm the one doing the hard work in making these maps, I use the name I find most appropriate. "FYROM", abbreviated, is totally unacceptable, and has always been. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is are 3 conventions mentioned, stating to use internally accepted onomatology, as well as respect to the international organisations' onomatology when reffering to them. Therefore, FYROM is the most accepted term for internal and organisations-related topics. If you find the term unacceptable, that's your point of view. It does not have to be implemented on the readers' brain as well. And please avoid the b word next time.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally applauded your effort on making the map, however this gives you no right to dictate other people's sensitivities. Also I never claimed there is consensus, I specifically claimed that articles on Greece are a "special case" and this is something WP:MOSMAC accepts, since Greeks are offended by the country's name. Am I making this up? Finally I never referred to "FYROM" in this specific post, but to the "UN Name" and I did that on purpose, since I also mention the lead paragraph, which has the full name. --   Avg    18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "dictating" other people's sensitivities (what does that even mean??). I'm ignoring them. Yours, for instance. And that's exactly what I should be doing, according to NPOV. Live with it. "Greeks are offended" is, was and always will be bullshit if applied as an argument in a Wikipedia debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please act more civilized towards other members of the wikipedia community. Such words and behaviour should be avoided.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the same would apply to "ethnic Macedonians are offended" and their sensitivities (e.g. having their country referred to as "Skopje" and themselves as "Skopjans"). Or is that not the case? --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We take some consideration of the preferences of the entity being named. Not that of their neighbours. Simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, a double standard. "We" (whoever that is) take into account some people's sensitivites on a particular matter, but not others. Then why not get rid of MOSMAC altogether then? --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"We" is the Wikipedia community, which has laid down these rules in WP:NCON and related policies. And no, it is of course not a "double standard", because it applies to everybody. Everybody gets to decide how to name themselves; nobody gets to decide how to name their neighbours. And yes, we could easily get rid of MOSMAC altogether, if it wasn't for the fact that the Greek editing community has been putting up an insane amount of disruptiveness and obstruction, and unfortunately we can't ignore their sheer revert-warring firepower, so we've had to accept a few compromises, short of having the lot of you banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat Fut.Perf.?--   Avg    21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mighty generous of the Wikipedia community not to ban "the lot of us", LOL. Imagine that. In any case, you can spin this however you want, but "we take into account group X's sensitivities on this particular matter but not group Y's " is still a double standard, no matter what. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You are mistaken. There is no double standard here. Please read the referenced policy page. I trust that you do not dispute that the state in question calls itself the "Republic of Macedonia". Under WP policy, WP calls it the Republic of Macedonia. Whether it is a good thing that it calls itself that, whether it has a right to call itself that, etc. are irrelevant. Along the same lines, there is an article on the Independent State of Rainbow Creek, which was never an independent state. --Macrakis (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, WP:NCON sucks, but there is no other conceivable guideline that would suck less. NikoSilver 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the double standard I'm talking about is that if Future Perfect can claim that "as long as I'm the one doing the hard work in making these maps, I use the name I find most appropriate", then if I were to draw a map, I could call it FYROM or Republic of Bullshit Macedonia or whatever else I would want. Now, if that were to confuse readers and reduce the impact of my map, that would be my problem as the author, but I'll be damned if I'll take other people's sensibilities into account when mine are not. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Macrakis, how can you justify Burma then? I myself have submitted a rename proposal to Myanmar since I naively believed that Wikipedia rules are to be followed universally, and it was rejected. So let me just state that rules are followed at will here.--   Avg    23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any consistency here. Should we also rename the geographical map to be consistent? Or is that unchanged because Fut.Perf. didn't make it? The second is a proper question, it's not ironic. (In fact I'm preparing a better looking geographical map with the same names but without the flags, no need for these). I was expecting more serious arguments from a WP admin than along the lines of:

"...the Wikipedia community has laid down...". This whole paragraph comes up as arrogant and aggressive so much so that it isn't even worth quoting and talking about. Still. So "you" are the wikipedia community and "the Greek editing community" is what, an anarchist group? I still like to believe that the wikipedia community is an open group and not a closed sect. And no, not everybody gets to name themselves however they like. I'm sure the Americans (just an example that came to mind) would put an equal amount of effort to prevent a newly founded country from being called "New York" and it's inhabitants "New Yorkers". We don't need to go that far even. Did you notice what happened with Absolut Vodka? Talk about sensitivities.

"I'm the one doing... I find the most appropriate name". You're not "making (up)" the map by yourself, you're using the information available to draw it and the information in question is disputed and debatable, even from people in the country itself. So this reasoning is totally unacceptable.

"FYROM abbreviated is totaly unacceptable...always has...". By whom, by you? There are several other pages (in other languages of European countries) of this article, where this exact abbreviation is used in the geographical map. So "totally" is definitely not the case. Unless you're talking only about the english page of the article. To clarify myself, when I said "FYROM" I used it just to abbreviate here. If you can fit "Former Yugoslav..." in the map, fine, that's not the issue here. But your argument on that is just weak. You didn't even bother to make a case for the non-abbreviated.

"...entity being named... not that of their neighbours. Simple as that". Well it's not as simple as that in cases like this. Hence the whole dispute issue. One's freedom ends where others' starts. Believe it or not, the final name of the dispute will have to do with someone's sensitivity be it with or without the term 'Macedonia', because the historic reasons as well as the ethnic ones, are clear enough. In fact it's all to do about sensitivity and compromise (in the world in general even) and maybe you should review your way of thinking on that, you never know when you might end up on the other end of the stick. Unless you really don't care how others will treat you then, which I very much doubt.

Macrakis, the question on consistency is directed towards you too. Please use a proper argument instead of just pointing to the guidelines/policies. You should know better that such rules aren't that solid when it comes to disputes and, as mentioned above, Myanmar (to equalize) is a good example. The way you're using the WP policy seems like it's beyond people and countries. "...whether it has a right...is irrelevant". So a country's rights are irrelevant in the might of WP? You're actually contradicting yourself there. The country uses it's right (whether the neighbors aknowledge this specific right, that is irrelevant here) to call itself somehow and that is what wikipedia abides by... only not all the time if we consider this article. So the WP argument doesn't hold much ground here.Arheos (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: "...that is what wikipedia abides by". Full stop. The exceptions found on this article and elsewhere, like the "FYROM" used in the other map, are just that: exceptions. They have no other reason than the irrational and obstructive insistence against policy by he majority of Greek editors here, and the text at WP:MOSMAC is the result of a negotiation acknowledging that it wouldn't be worthwhile trying to break that insistence at the moment. That's why we have a kind of truce here: Leave things as is. Just as I'm leaving the "FYROM" in that other map alone, against my better judgment that it really shouldn't be there. But please don't come insisting that the existence of that just-barely-tolerated exception would mandate the extension to other similar exceptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Aheos, you said you were preparing a replacement of the other map without the flags? You don't need to, in that map both the flags and the legends are not actually part of the graphics, but overlays produced by wiki text. You can edit out the flags in the article text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"...abides by.Full stop." Now you're just taking the words out of context and using it as argument. You know what I meant by this and if it's not clear by now I'll summarize it: This is not a simple case of choosing a name. There's the full stop. Above all, one needs to realize that. In Geography of Greece the same naming is used (again the abbreviation is not the issue, the main article uses the spelled out form) and we're not even talking about the body of the article. It's about the map. Insisting on using "Republic..." seems more like you're trying to please someone who isn't content with "former..." rather than just tolerating it. And even MOSMAC isn't taking a final decision on "articles about Greece", let alone on maps about Greece. I'm not suggesting to extend this, but this is no "similar exception" either. It's the same article and it's the second map for this article. I see no reason to have different naming usage for the two maps. And I'm sure you'll find a lot more resistance in suggesting to change the geographical map which is not a "just-barely-tolerated exception". I'm not talking about articles on other neighboring countries and what naming they use. I only care about this specific article and this specific usage. It's not some nationalistic stance or anything similar, it's about respect and being sensitive.

BTW, I know that the flags and legends are overlays, it's just that there are better maps (better looking, no border changes or any kind of disputes) and I was thinking of using that. I think it'll look better. When it's up, you'll see. I wonder a little whether I can use Google Earth satellite data -coastlines and borders only, no 3d- though.Arheos (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Arheos, I'm sorry if I come across as rather impatient in this discussion. It's just that this has all be discussed previously, and people like Avg and Tsourkp know it all too well. There's really nothing much to add here. Wikipedia-wide, for a variety of reasons, "R. o. M." is the sole, consensus term that we use, more or less everywhere, to be in keeping with our general policies. That is not going to change. Parts of the Greek editor community have been insisting on having their own local exception for "their" articles. The reasons for and against doing this have been debated ad nauseam; I believe it is for reasons that are directly against all normal principles of how Wikipedia works, it's purely a concession to POV, but it is sort of tolerated for the sake of avoiding edit wars. So far so good, but you can't force other editors to make yet more concessions at this point. Yes, the result is some amount of inconsistency, but who cares? If you want consistency, the only way there is to go for the single, uniform naming scheme in all of Wikipedia, and you wouldn't like that. If you want those exceptions, be glad you have those you have.

As for the Google maps, I'm afraid not, as far as I know those are copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this off topic...OpenStreetMap. I think I'm done.Arheos (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From the above discussion, it seems to me that this boils down to whoever creates the map can call it RoM of FYROM or whatever he or she likes, and that's fine by me. So what I'd like to be 100% sure of then, is if I were to create a map and label that country as fYROM, the "Wikipedia community" (of which you have designated yourself official spokesman) wouldn't have a collective cow about it and try to force me to change it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviated "FYROM" is unacceptable because it's opaque to the uninformed reader. Spelled out "f... Y..." is unacceptable in most general-purpose maps because it's against general naming conventions, including MOSMAC. Spelled-out versions of "f... Y..." for use in a Greece-related article would be borderline tolerable, according to the no-consensus truce. If you were to make a replacement for this specific map with the sole purpose of forcing in the naming issue, it would be an unacceptable WP:POINT violation and an instance of disruptive edit-warring, violating the "leave stuff alone" truce. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the "leave stuff alone", but we're talking about a very recent part of the article and a very recent map accordingly. So before it becomes a status quo, I'm discussing it. You can't just leave something alone because the first person decided to do it in a certain way or because it's been up for a few months. When the dispute is resolved, of course I'll accept the decision, but until then...Arheos (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, I have no absolutely intention of doing anything that trivial and time-consuming, but I just want to know for future reference. I agree about the FYROM being opaque, but I disupte the acceptability of using spelled out "f... Y..." on general use maps. The spelled out version is in fact self-explanatory. The general reader would have to be quite thick to be confused by that. It's unacceptable because it's against MOSMAC? I thought you had no time for MOSMAC, and now you're invoking it? Your doctrine of "I made the map, ergo I can call it whatever I want and to hell with MOSMAC" applies to maps I make as well as maps you make. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said to hell with MOSMAC? I'm following it. My map follows exactly the general naming preference laid out there. MOSMAC does NOT mandate that we should make exceptions for Greece-related articles. It just tolerates that some people do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. MOSMAC it is, then. --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're clearly NOT following MOSMAC. Summary guidance says: In articles dealing only with the internal affairs of Greece - Use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (NB - the "f" in "former" should be uncapitalised).--   Avg    15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did that come from? That summary is plainly false, and it was most certainly not there when we were discussing the guideline. This has never been and will never be consensus. The guideline itself, as discussed and adopted, clearly states that there is no consensus on how to deal with Greece-related articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints to ChrisO [7]. Apart from that, it's been two and a half months.--   Avg    16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have said all I will say. --Macrakis (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You are mistaken. There is no double standard here. Please read the referenced policy page. I trust that you do not dispute that the state in question calls itself "Myanmar". Under WP policy, WP calls it Myanmar. Whether it is a good thing that it calls itself that, whether it has a right to call itself that, etc. are irrelevant. Right?--   Avg    16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the article needs to be GA?--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Seriously what needs to be done for the article to move forward on the quality scale? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Just follow WP:GAC istructions, but I am not sure the article is yet there.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new map for the linguistic minorities of Greece. (To be more precise a map of the areas that used to have linguistic minorities).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:550px-Greece_linguistic_minoritiesb_copy.jpg I did use the map of Future Perfect and I only altered the appearance of color. There were concerns from other editors of how much area actually those language covered. The map intended to demonstrate the distribution of the languages and not its percentage in those areas. In order to show that the languages were actually overlapping with Greek I used lines of color instead of flat colors. In areas with smaller pockets the color remained intact mainly because it would be completely invisible.
The area of Arvanitika in Attika represent the presence of Arvanitika historically, not the modern presence. If we want to be contemporary the Arvanitika should have been a dot! More or less the same applies to the Slav-Macedonian and the Aromanian
I did reduce the area of Arvanitika especially in the coastal regions of Attica.( I do have the impression that it was only in mainland villages in Attika/Voiotia.)
I do believe that it is better this way but I haven’t incorporated it in the article.
This is for the editors to decide.
If no one finds any use to this redrawn map feel free to delete it. (note that the map of ethnologue which is the main source of futPerf also used lines and not flat colors.) Seleukosa (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work! I wanted to do something similar, but have neither the time nor skill, so I decided to leave it alone. I'm all for inserting it in the article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem with me. I note that it would have been technically cleaner if it could have been done in SVG, so I'd definitely recommend keeping the original SVG version around for reference. By the way, it's not really more "exact" this way either, because it could now be read as implying that in the small compact non-striped speech islands there actually are majorities, which isn't the case. That's why I said: stripes only make sense where there are genuine non-striped areas to disinguish them from. But anyway, if you want to have a zebra map, ντε και καλά, no opposition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and of course this is not "exact"! (You are right about small areas of color but I don’t think that anyone will have a problem with that.)

The best way would have been to create this map in Illustrator but it’s a day’s work and I can’t afford it! I used Photoshop to tamper with the original.

Seleukosa (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a better map. Good work! -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Pomak be non-striped? BalkanFever 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How can someone create & edit a map? Which program is needed (given that he works with XP Windows) ? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do mine in Inkscape, which produces SVG vector graphics output. It's a bit complicated, but it has the advantage that everything remains easily editable afterwards, so you can easily re-use or modify stuff (like, use the same basic outline with new legends or different colors etc.) If you are content working just with bitmap data, you can basically use whatever graphics application you have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I like the map, but what you say about "Arvanitika" ("The area of Arvanitika in Attika represent the presence of Arvanitika historically, not the modern presence. If we want to be contemporary the Arvanitika should have been a dot! More or less the same applies to the Slav-Macedonian and the Aromanian") should IMO be somehow incorporated in the map as some kind of explanation-clarification. And the same with Slav-Bulgarian. The reader must not get the impression that these languages dominate the stripped areas. And, depite the map's title, wrong impressions may prevail.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, we're back at square one. Yannis, the stripes are supposed to be the means of indicating they are not dominant. That's why everybody wanted them; I originally had solid colours. But again, I feel vindicated in saying that the stripes don't really help all that much: if there's no solid-colored areas for the striped areas to contrast with, the stripiness carries no meaning. Whatever, that these are today small minorities is a matter for the text to point out; the map itself simply cannot do that. The areas as such must be given, because it is after all a language-geographic thing; the task of the map is to distinguish areas where there is/was some Arvanitic/Aromanian/whatever, from those where there is none. Those are the boundaries that it shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Map is incorrect, it doesn't reflect the future, there should be no other language than Greek there! *roll eyes* -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FutPer, I read very carefully the previous discussion, and I understand the reason the stripes, have been chosen! This may be a correct decision! But, at the same time, this does not change the fact that a reader may be still misguided, because there is no explanation. For instance, is this a historical or modern map? Its creator says above: "The area of Arvanitika in Attika represent the presence of Arvanitika historically, not the modern presence.". Is this also the case for the other languages? I don't think so. Therefore, do we have to do with a map that "blends" historical trends (Arvanitika) and modern "delineations" (Turkish)? If yes, this is a problem. If no, then what is exactly going with this map? That is why believe that, although the stripes may be an improvement, the problem is not resolved. Some explanations, however, on the box down on the left or in the caption wherever the map is added could do or almost do the job. So, I do not think that "we're back at square one", but that, despite the improvements or the intended improvements that have been implemented, there are still some unclear issues.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, about the time frame: The original data I had used seemed to imply a late-20th-century conservative cutoff point, i.e., these are presumably areas where you'd be likely to have found at least some remaining speakers of these groups among rural populations in the older generation, at some time during the later decades of the 20th century. The sources were not very explicit in defining such a cutoff point, i.e. specifying the time when whatever surveys were done, in cases where there may be a possibility that the languages became extinct within the last few decades. If you were to use earlier data, some areas would obviously be bigger. So, basically, yes, it's supposed to be "modern presence" in the sense of "remnants preserved until today or until recently". BTW, if there's any special treatment of Arvanitika, that's not my doing; it was Seleukosa who opted to erase a few bits at the margins of that blob; my original sources were more or less of the same nature for all these languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, for what I can see in your source, that map has also the pontic language, which is not reflected in the image of wikipedia. As this is a language map and not an ethnic map, it would be wise to add it as well. Remember that Modern Greek and Pontic Greek do have the same root (Ancient Greek) but both languages evolved separately and in different places and are not a dialect of each other. Consider Spanish and French, for instance, both are Romanic languages that descend mainly from Latin, but are not considered dialects of each other. By the way, your source isn't very reliable... it's over 15 years old! You could at least state that. 87.219.84.58 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have to bring this up yet again, but on consideration I don't believe Kekrops' attempted rewrite of this sentence about Slavic/Macedonian [8] is satisfactory. "Non-Greek linguists usually classify them..."? That implies that Greek linguists classify them differently. They don't, not that I'm aware of. Of course, Greek linguists, to the extent that they talk about these dialects at all, will use their own prefered terminology, naming that language differently. Which is fine, but irrelevant for us. But the factual claim of classification remains the same. The dialects around Florina are dialects of the standard language spoken in Skopje, no matter what you call it. The only logical alternative would be that they are dialects of some other language, or that they constitute a language of their own. Nobody, to my knowledge, is claiming either. There simply is no controversy about this issue. The only (academic) question is where exactly east of Thessaloniki you put the cutoff point towards Bulgarian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So theoretically one could find: "The local Slavic speech of Kastoria is a dialect of the Slavic idiom of the state of Skopje" (Greek linguist), which in no way conflicts with: "The Slavic dialect of Kostur is Macedonian" (other linguist) BalkanFever 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And how about the whole self-determination issue? It is highly likely that the Greek linguist has documented what those who speak the language told him. The Slavophone Greeks speak a language they call "Dopia", their northwestern neighbours call "Macedonian" and their northeastern "Bulgarian". If you're all for self-determination you should go for "Dopia" right? If you start naming this language according to your conventions you give grounds to other people naming YOU according to their conventions.--   Avg    02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It says "these dialects are linguistically classified as either forms of Macedonian or Bulgarian". Maybe we should pipe to linguistics so everybody understands. BalkanFever 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well surprise, Macedonian Slavic is a very respected term in linguistics.--   Avg    02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But (and it wasn't me who first brought this up) it is clearly referring to Slavic (and not Greek), as stated in the sentence before it. BalkanFever 02:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Greek linguists accept the classification of the Slavic dialects of Greece as "dialects of the Slavic idiom of the state of Skopje" at all, actually, or even that of "Macedonian" as a distinct language under any name. According to Babiniotis, perhaps the most prominent linguist in Greece: Ως προς τη «μακεδονική» γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, πρόκειται στην πραγματικότητα για μια βουλγαρική στη δομή της διάλεκτο (κατατάσσεται από τους γλωσσολόγους μαζί με τη βουλγαρική γλώσσα), που άρχισε να εκσερβίζεται με βάση τα ιδιώματα των περιοχών Prilep, Bitolja, Kicev και Veles από το 1944, όταν τα Σκόπια απετέλεσαν τη «Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία τής Μακεδονίας» στην ενιαία Γιουγκοσλαβία τού Τίτο. Ο τεχνητός εκσερβισμός τής βουλγαρικής διαλέκτου των Σκοπίων και η κατασκευή (από ομάδα γλωσσολόγων) εθνικής δήθεν γλώσσας από τα επιμέρους ιδιώματα έγινε για πολιτικούς λόγους, για να αποφευχθούν οι διεκδικήσεις των Βουλγάρων, που θεωρούσαν τα Σκόπια και τους κατοίκους τους βουλγαρική περιοχή. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The well-known nationalist fringe view, which goes into Political views on the Macedonian language. But that doesn't affect the classification of the dialects. Babiniotis is not saying that the dialects of Florina belong to a different language than those in Skopje. In fact, he doesn't seem to be talking about those dialects at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that the language of Skopje is effectively Bulgarian, which means that even if the dialects of Florina belong to the same language as those in Skopje, they all fall under Bulgarian. In other words, Greek linguists don't accept the classification of the Slavic dialects of Greece as "Macedonian", as that would presuppose their recognition of the latter as a language distinct from Bulgarian. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's still an isolated nationalist fringe view, in the international context. The view that Macedonian doesn't really exist is so fringy we rightly ignore it in our mainstream treatment of that language (except in the "political views" section); by consequence, any views about the dialects that presuppose that view are just as fringy and ignorable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To you perhaps, but in the subject of this article it is seen quite simply as historically accurate. A distinction between Greek and non-Greek linguists is perfectly legitimate. The "international context" is not the only one that matters, despite what you think. Especially in the context of this article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would we give preferential treatment to Greek authors, just because this is a Greece article? Get a grip. Our, Wikipedia's, NPOV viewpoint is always that of the international consensus. We give that fringe view more than its fair share of representation in the "political views on..." article and elsewhere. Letting it intrude on a passing one-sentence treatment within a subsection of a subsection of a larger article is definitely undue weight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever suggest that the "international consensus" should not be mentioned? Quite the contrary. All I'm saying is that it should be delineated from the Greek, which is also pertinent in this article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus, of course, the position expressed by Babiniotis in that quote is not even representative of the whole of Greek scholarship, it's an extreme position even within that context. Many other Greek authors do accept Macedonian as a separate language, they just use a different name for it ("Slavomacedonian"), but without the scare quotes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ἔστω. Τhat doesn't mean they accept that the Slavic dialects of Greece fall under it. Non sequitur. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For that theoretical possibility, it's up to you to bring sources. Quote me one reputable linguist claiming that Bulgarian rather than (Slavo-)Macedonian is spoken around Florina. I want to see that specific claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you've just called the most reputable linguist in Greece an extremist nationalist proponent of a fringe view. I can't really help you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if you are not prepared to read the relevant scholarship and are not able to actually bring forward more than popular soundbites, evidently you can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely your problem. Scholarship is only "relevant" if you agree with it; if not, it is summarily dismissed as an extremist nationalist fringe view. That's the difference between you and me; I don't want to censor your "international" view, but you do want to exclude the Greek view. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because I, unlike you, am actually familiar with the larger context of what is and what isn't mainstream internationally in this field? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, no, I'll take that back. You aren't actually denying that the (extreme) Greek view is in fact internationally isolated. You just want this article treated as a POV reservation where local views are given preferential treatment. Forget it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, Fritz. I know what is "mainstream internationally", but that doesn't change the essence of my argument, namely that yours is not the only view that matters. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." And in the context of Greece, Babiniotis, Professor of Linguistics and former Rector of the University of Athens, is about as reliable a source as you can get. You may think that your posting in Turkey gives you some special authority, but I regret to inform you that no Turkish university even comes close in the international rankings. His is not a tiny-minority view, όσο και να χτυπάς τον κώλο σου στο μάρμαρο. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In the context of Slavic dialectology, a professor of Greek linguistics in Athens is just as reliable as a professor of Chinese in Nicaragua. (and Turkish?? Huh?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about. And he's not a professor of Greek linguistics, he's a professor of linguistics, period. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Greek is the only language he's ever published about. He's certainly no authority on Slavic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Mostly, but not exclusively. And you're no authority either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The relevant literature is quoted in the Macedonian language article. Read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't say much to me. Those who would publish about the "Macedonian language" in the first place would obviously take the "Macedonian" POV as their starting point. So what? Their work is only representative of those who agree with that viewpoint, whether they're in the majority or not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask, but can someone please translate the block of text? BalkanFever 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the predictable stuff. in reality a Boulgarian dialect blah blah blah 1944 blah blah blah artificially Serbianized blah blah blah creation of an allegedly national language for political reasons yada yada yada. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the "Macedonian" language of Skopje, it is in reality a structurally Bulgarian dialect (grouped by linguists together with the Bulgarian language), that started to be serbianised based on the idioms of the regions of Prilep, Bitola, Kicev and Veles since 1944, when Skopje formed the "People's Republic of Macedonia" in Tito's united Yugoslavia. The artificial serbianisation of the Bulgarian dialect of Skopje and the manufacturing (by a team of linguists) of an allegedly national language from these idioms occurred for political reasons, to thwart the claims by the Bulgarians, who considered Skopje and their inhabitants a Bulgarian region.. Babiniotis is the absolute authority in anything linguistic in Greece, Last time I checked Fut. you're not an authority in anything to refer to his claims in such a disparaging manner.--   Avg    11:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my personal opinion is that "Macedonian" is as much a separate language from Bulgarian as Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak/n and Montenegrin are from each other, if not more so. Ultimately, it is (also) a political question, not a (purely) linguistic one. The reality is that linguists only consider it a separate language called "Macedonian" because of a political decision made in Tito's Yugoslavia in 1944, not due to any compelling linguistic arguments. Before that, with the exception of the Serbs, they didn't. In that sense, Babiniotis is right, even if his analysis in unpopular in the politically correct academic circles further west. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Babiniotis is a competent Greek lexicographer. The local public perception of him being "the absolute authority in anything linguistic" is owing more to his political, institutional and TV activities than his academic work strictu sensu. Anybody familiar with the field knows that there is no such thing as "absolute authorities". In any case, he has never published about Slavic, he is not an authority in that field, his location in Greece gives him no extra credibility with respect to the neighbouring language, and the paragraph quoted above (from what source, actually?) is an opinion piece that any journalist or politician could have written just the same, and bears not much more significance than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, there are authorities we like and authorities we don't, and that's about it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is an international consensus and there are views that are held by tiny local minorities, however well respected these minorities may be locally and in their specific fields. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How imperialistic. Mein Gott. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the CV of this unimportant "lexicographer" http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/20071004/cult/cv_bambiniotis_en.pdf --   Avg    13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure "Glossologia" is the bible of the Slavist. BalkanFever 09:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Greece is the most ethnically homogeneous country in the Balkans, with ethnic Greeks making up about 98 percent of the population (not accounting for illegal immigrants). There is a significant Turkish minority in western Thrace. Other minorities include Albanians, Roma (Gypsies), Pomaks (Muslim Slavs), Armenians, Macedonian Slavs, and Vlachs.

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572872_3/Greece.html

--87.219.85.18 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure not to bother consulting Encarta for anything, then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.253.101 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

would this pronunciation audio for the native name of Greece be something useful about this article?> ([Elláda]^ⓘ) CuteHappyBrute (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Im an anon and cant edit this because it is protected, but I think that part in the second paragraph should be deleted. 1) The first paragraph should be the part with that info if it was to be used, the second paragraph is where culture and such. 2) Is it accurate to say is it the junncture for Asia and Africa?

'Juncture: the line or point at which two bodies are joined; joint or articulation; seam.' - Dictionary.com Turkey is the bridge between Asia and Europe and I dont know how someone can make the claim it is a juncture for Africa; it is no more of a 'juncture' than any other Southern European state. It doesnt even touch Africa. Maybe the editor is thinking Crete is to Greece as Sicily is to Italy (a stepping stone to Europe)-which it historically hasnt been. 3) Is it relevant? The article already mentions where Greece is located and what countries it borders-it this bit of analysis useful? If Greece was a major multicultural country like Turkey, where many cultures come together and many peoples migrated through and left their mark on Greek society, etc. then I can see it being relevant-but Greece isnt any of that. There hasnt been any significant human migrations from Africa to Europe or Europe to Africa that would make this factoid relevant.

Someone with editing capabilities delete it-it is utterly useless and in my opinion, inaccurate and misleading. Thanks 69.19.14.22 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There "hasnt been any significant human migrations from Africa to Europe"? Is this some kind of joke, or are you merely ignorant of the entire history of the world and of Ancient Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.253.101 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean that Black people "colonised" Greece? Are you one of the guys that believe that the Greeks come from Ethiopians? You are probably joking...--DIMISM2008 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Where Greeks come from is a matter largely of conjecture, especially as the genetic structure of modern Greeks is so diverse. However, it is clearly true according to modern genetic evidence that originally we all came from Africa. That is not the same as your political word "colonised" which is quite inappropriate and shows that you are locked into a mindset of war and territory.193.92.150.66 (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Yes, we do come from Africa all of us. This is true according to most of the scientists lol... You can use the word "migrated" instead... However, the word "colony" is not so close to war... Colonisation is not always about war...--DIMISM2008 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is accurate from both geographic and historical points of view. Africa played a role in Greece history mostly through Egypt, and Greece played a role in the history of Africa, does "Ptolemy" name tell you anything? -- man with one red shoe (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you mean it. You are probably talking about culture, commerce etc. I'm talking about the people who settled in Greece (and eventually become the Greeks). I agree that we all came once from Africa.. However, I just wanted to mention that it is a joke to believe that the Greeks come from Ethiopia, as some people claim, much later than some other tribes did... Interbreeding is sth different. Name one nation that is "pure". (Especially in Balkans.)--DIMISM2008 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the treaty of Lausanne and all the treaties that followed THERE ARE NO LINGUISTIC OR ETHNICAL MINORITIES IN GREECE , only the religious minority in Eastern Thrace.I can't see why some people are trying to conviece tha whole world about fake things that do not exist and the Wikipedia Foundation is not taking the whole situation more seriously.MetroStar (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The existence of a minority does not depend on its being mentioned in treaties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Those Arvanitika and Slavic minorities put in the site by someony either uninformed or propagandist simply do not exist.Go to these places and if you find even one people from these supposed minorities i ll edit the page at my own and add the ridiculus map.

Been there, met some. Case closed. Read the literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The official Greek position is that there is no "Macedonian" minority in Greece. Indeed, I lived in Macedonia for many years and only the residents of a couple of villages close to Florina and to the borders consider themselves non-Greeks and again not all of them. This has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, they are SLAV Macedonians. The word "Macedonian" discribes the residents of the region (Greek, Bulgarian and Slav Macedonia). It is unfair for the Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians who are the majority of the population. The article for the minorities should change. As I said I lived there for many years. You lie when you say that you met some simply because there aren't any. Case should not be closed. This article is not correct and it should change along with the map. Please do so. Nobody in Greece is talking Arvanitica or a Slav language nowdays. This is a very important mistake.--DIMISM2008 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware of the official Greek position. It is a disgrace for Greece and it is a disgrace for the European Union that such a repressive country is allowed to be a member in what should be a union of democracies. Luckily enough, Wikipedia is not by any means obliged to follow Greek repression policies. I do agree, though, that there might be a case for using the name FYROM on the map, read WP:MOSMAC for further information JdeJ (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from someone whose country is the epitome of intolerance, racism, and assimilationism in Europe and is a continuous source of embarassment for all of Europe. The French Republic does not "recognize" any minorities, as that is incompatible with its "Republican" (i.e." intolerant") model and just recently the Academie Francaise issued a "ruling" recommending that minority languages not be taught in France as this would "threaten national unity". Talk about repressive and shameful, not to mention backwards and idiotic. Nor do I need to remind you of the recent Paris race riots and the incredible racial tensions that surface in France on a daily basis (arguably the worst in Europe). I would also like to remind you that xenophobic, openly racist far right parties do not enjoy nearly as much support in Greece as they do in France (one of the few areas where France is still in the "vanguard of Europe"). Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't contest anything you say, France, Greece and Romania are the three worst countries in this regard in the EU. JdeJ (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, all these comments are pretty unnecessary, let's cut out the nonsense here. To "DIMISM2002": This has been discussed ad nauseam. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And everybody else, DNFTT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss anything that has to do with the tolerance of the Greek state on any minority issues... I just posted my opinion about the minority article. I mentioned the reason for which I do not agree with it.

As for JdeJ's comment I think I shouldn't pay any attention to it. Everyone is free to say anything they want. I just want him/her to know that I do not agree with what he said about Greece. (e.g. The muslim population in Thrace has increased. Can he tell us what has happened to the Greeks in Turkey? How many were they and what is their number now?)--DIMISM2008 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Map in the so-called Minorities section has to be changed. The country at the north is called FYROM not Rep. of Macedonia77.83.209.106 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that there weren't linguistic minorities or there aren't now ethnic minorities in Greece.The problem is that the map doesn't have a meaning.These languages are dead,not spoken to say the least and because of the internal immigration geographically a long shot from reality.What's the purpose really i can't understand.A similar map let's say of Turkey with traditional linguistic minorities would have half of the country covered when actually the speakers are handful.Such a map has a meaning in a country like Spain not here.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The name "Republic of Macedonia" on the Ethnic Map is not a NPOV. UN resolution 817, which was agreed to by both the governments of Greece and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is what has been defined as the temporary name of this country. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia shall remain with this name until this issue is settled. To include a map with a name that is preffered by the people of the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, with a name that is contested by the Greeks is not neutral in my mind. Adhering to the name that is found on the UN resolution and what was agreed upon by both countries is much more neutral. Please remove the map, or correct it please. Hairamess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairamess (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another issue with the Ethnic Map is there is no sources for the data of minorities in Greece, where are the numbers coming from so that this map could be drawn accurately, how did the author of the map decide where to place these virtual borders of ethnicities on this map, Greece does not collect data on it's ethnicities in any of its national census, so how could this map be accurate, could this map not be considered POV with no data backing it's creation? Hairamess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairamess (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture looks rubbish that size, but when you blow it up, the detail if fantanstic. I might use it as my screen saver for a while :-) Politis (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, I must say I like the Athens one too (Image:Athensgreece.jpg). Very characteristic of Greek life, and somehow more fitting for the demographics section than yet another idyllic postcard view of a provincial town. A pity the copyright status is unclear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for information on a greek artist by the name of: Jon der Boken(?) E. Anyone with solid information please email me at: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.136.81 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)