Talk:Greece/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pending Changes

Who decided to put this article in 'pending changes'. And who is responsible for accepting or rejecting the new edits? Politis (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Map image link

There is a political map of Greece in the Geography section, which, when clicked, takes one to a significantly different version of the map. This is completely counterintuitive and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.187.144 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I've re-semiprotected this page, given the persistent vandalisms dealing mainly with the name of the Republic of Macedonia. I fail and the reason should be "Repeated ip-hopping vandalism related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia after a year of semi-protection. Looks like it has to be long-term protected, sadly." year, not hour. Thought I'd write it up somewhere, and yes, the heat must have done something to my brain for not being able to do one clean protection out of three tries :P Snowolf How can I help? 17:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that conventional semi-protection seems necessary due to the issue about the name of the Republic of Macedonia. In my opinion the pending changes protection that was applied on July 1 is not an adequate replacement for semiprotection. WP:PEND can't deal effectively with long-term POV-pushing by new editors on a well-known real-world dispute, since the history gets cluttered up with the making and the reverting of the same kind of change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

Is there such a thing as a "healthy Mediterranean diet". That sounds like POV to me. I have read recent reports suggesting that the typical Mediterranean diet isn't healthy at all.JohnC (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs map correction for data on Thrace

The map 'territorial gains until 1947' shows Western Thrace as coming under Greek rule in 1923, whereas other sources indicate that the date should be 1920. Both Eastern and Western Thrace were acquired by Greece in 1919-1920, and then Eastern Thrace reverted to Turkey in 1923 (correctly shown on map) -- per the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for 'Thrace' and the Wikipedia article on Thrace. Uranian Institute (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

National Anthem

Why is the National Anthem transliterated as "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleftherían"? Even in the polytonic script, the pronunciation is "Ýmnos is tin Eleftherían". Keep in mind that this is Modern Greek and not Ancient Greek. The anthem was written in 1823, therefore Modern Greek phonology and transliteration applies. And even in Ancient Greek your transliteration is wrong, since "η" would be [ē] and not [ī]. Philly boy92 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, but there might be a counterargument, that's transliteration, not phonetic representation. man with one red shoe 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the name of the country "Republic of Macedonia". It is not recognised from Greece. The correct name is: "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia".

178.59.83.109 (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please See Here Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going on? Perhaps that wikilink should be used as a ref in the article? •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Please gain consensus for any suggested changes before requesting an edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ι think the name has to bee as it is Yes,Greece will never recognize a fake state with this name, even if the whole world does, but wiki is for "the whole world" Greco22 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

photos

I think we ve got a little problem.too many and irrelevant photos.With your permission co-editors may i put in order? :) Greco22 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Greco22. I think the photos are just fine. They are neither irrelevant nor too many. Other countries articles have many many more. Please dont erase them as they are absolutely relevant. Not one photo is irrelevant. I think is perfectly nice to have photos from around Greece since this is the Greece article. Its also perfectly fine to add photos you might consider proper, but on the other hand its not nice to erase photos. Thanks. Avionics1980 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

for example...full moon over oia? athens concert hall?(actually is private organization,not public such is the national theate for example) panachaiko range? and others

plus,as appears the article right now many photos are at irrelevant sections(the photos of transport are at immigration section for example)

and the structure...why the empty space before demographics?

Im not against photographs, actually I want them a lot and if you see i ve decorated most of greek articles which were "empty" but...as it is "greece" right now ....1)the reader feels uncomfortable of the many photos around the text and 2)the article seems a little bit ugly

why dont you use my version adding the pictures that you like mostly from the previous? Greco22 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some images must go, especially where they cause text sandwiching, per the MOS:IMAGES guidelines. Greco22, you can always be bold and implement the changes you have in mind, and let other editors judge them... If the aesthetic result is superior, it'll be kept. Constantine ✍ 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I gave it a go:
The articles of other countries also need clean-up of photos. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I also removed/changed a few. I like nice photos as much as anyone, but let's keep only images that are truly representative, and/or widely recognizable. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Guys lets put things under perspective here. Nobody says to have 1000 photos, but again nobody says that we need to add only truly representative photos. Who is the one who judges what is representative and whats not? We can add relevant photos in an article. Nobody added naked girls in Greece article, that would be irrelevant. Personally I added relevant photos of Greece scenery, or Greek buildings or for instance Egnatia Highway for the transport section. I mean what is more relevant than to add a big project like Egnatia highway in the transport section...And somebody removed it...Pretty unbelievable Avionics1980 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, let's keep things in perspective. When the article has so many pictures that the text is almost reduced to insignificance, crammed between rows of images, then that means that images have to go. Remember: the images are for illustration, not in lieu of text or links to articles. For galleries, we have special sections at the end of pages or Commons. This article must be the equivalent of a good but short, introductory book on Greece. It will not include images from places that are virtually unknown (the Arsakeio, or Volos harbour). For the photo you mention, it was I who removed it. Between the Rio-Antirro bridge, which is one of the world's engineering marvels of the last decade, and the rather uninspiring entrance of a tunnel, I think the former is more representative. Constantine ✍ 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
My take on this is that the Egnatia Odos is no less of an engineering marvel than the Rio-Antiro bridge, though the tunnel pic doesn't do it justice. I think this [1] is a better picture. The "transport" section is a bit on the short side, and could use some more content. In which case the Egnatia pic wouldn't be too much. In general, regarding the pictures, I think the article has a good amount, not too few, but not too many either. I agree that the pics removed by Enric were a good move (Panteion, entrance to Museum, Mykonos beach), but I think things are ok now. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Population

The population of Greece is 11,420,000 according to latest estimations. Just add the population of the 13 administrative regions of the country and you 'll find that out! Well, the difference between 11.3 million and 11.4 million isn't really big, but it would be nice to be more accurate... And after all, since I am greek and I live in Athens, I have to say that I feel that today's population must be quite bigger than 11.4 million, because there are not just thousands, but millions of immigrants from all over the world in our country and those people aren't included in those data! So, the total population of Greece must be about 13 or even 14 million... Anyway, next year (aka 2011) there is the next official census taking place, so we 'll see exactly at what range the total population is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.255.71 (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia has not been officially recognized as a country

The name Macedonia refers to the wider area of northern Greece, west of Thrace, inhabited by Greek people since the ancient times. The neighbor country named Macedonia in this article has not been officially recognized by that name; currently it is identified as Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia (aka FYROM), and refers to a totally different nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozius (talk • contribs) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

languages of greece

In the article it is written "The Jewish community in Greece traditionally spoke Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), today maintained only by a small group of a few thousand speakers." I would like to add that the jewish community in greece was/is also represented by the Romaniotes. Their languages were Yevanic, a Greek dialect, and Greek. Check the wiki article "Romaniotes" and the wiki article on "History of the Jews in Greece". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.189.22 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This map has mistakes and the areas of the map dont fit exactly with the link of the europe ethnologue map which is given(for example shows arvanitika speaken at whole Attica and even at the city of Athens)

Maybe the user Future Perf. had some cretaive inspiration.I think he forgot 15 serbians in Kalamata and 3 jews in Karditsa. It would be better to edit a map about the slavic-speaking Germany (the half country) Greco22 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Immigration law

The final draft of the recent immigration law requires a five-year long legal presence in Greece for both parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.186.139 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Photos from the Gallery

Greco22 you are deleting photos from the Gallery with no reason and keep adding other photos. If you want to add your photos, do it, but its wrong to delete the photos that already exist there and are photos showing Greece (the Gallery is about Greece remember) and not nude women, cars, ships or something else irrelevant. Please stop doing that.Avionics1980 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,sorry but where do you see nude women,cars,ships? etc...I hope your pc is ok

Your fotos are completely irrelevant,is it "greece" the congress center in tinos or the court house in chania?or even the statue of bouboulina in spetses? and it is not mystras palace as you said?

are you trolling us? :) i saw that user:Gregorik wrote that you bandalized the article of Hungary So what is your purpose? I think a more experienced user could help us... Greco22 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are completely wrong. Here is why: I dint say that your pics are irrelevant. Neither are mine. Spetses is part of Greece. So is the cogress center in Tinos. Is just a photo from Tinos, which is in Greece. There is no less relevant or more relevant photo. All photos that are from Greece, showing landscapes from Greece are welcome. But i think is wrong when you start deleting content, to add yours.

As far as Gregorik and Hungary, you should know better. The only entry I did for Hungary article was to remove a Wikipedia Spam List reference (see International Living Website) and more specifically their so-called Quality of Life Index, which is the most biased piece of material that one could site on Wikipedia. This is a well known and accepted fact in the Wikipedia community and no one references this site in Wikipedia. Hungary could not be the exception.Avionics1980 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: We shouldn't have too many pictures in the gallery, not more than say, 16, otherwise the page will take forever to load for users with a slower connection. The purpose of a gallery is to show representative pictures of the country that are not in the text. We already have several pictures of towns in the main text (Nafplio, Ermoupolis), while archeological sites are not represented. So for the gallery, I would remove: Florina (the grey hazy sky is nothing to look at), the current pic of Samaria (it doesn't do the gorge justice, it just shows an uninteresting rock formation that could be anywhere), the night view of Trikala (an unremarkable town square), the Congress at Tinos (it's just a building), Skiathos (grey sky, already lots of beach pics), Skopelos (an unremarakable beach pic, the pic of Navagio in the main text is much better), the view of the port of Patras (it's heavily slanted horizon makes it look like it was taken by some ferry passenger who has just gotten out of bed), the pics of Karlovasi and Chania are also quite unremarkable, either one of Corfu or Naupactus on the grounds that they look very similar to Nafplio, and the picture of Volos from mount Pelion with its slanted horizon. So that's 24-11=13. I would add: Definitely the Isthums of Corinth, Mystras (not enough medieval monuments, though maybe a better pic, without so much scaffolding), and possibly also the Temple of Hephaestos in Athens as the best-preserved ancient Greek temple in Greece.
I would also replace the pic of the hideous central Bank building in the Economy section with a pic of the commercial port of Pireas. After all, shipping is a main feature of the Greeks economy, and the port of Pireas is much more photogenic and typically Greek than the Central Bank building. Athenean (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Athenian, hope you are doing ok.

My thoughts: I believe we can leave the amount of photos. There are other Wikipedia articles about countries with much, much more photos than Greece article in the point actually that you think if its an Encyclopedia article or a Lonely Planet tourist guide. Also the photos on those articles are spread across the article and not in Gallery as in Greece. So i think its fine to include this amount of photos. Greece article cant be the exception. If we want less photos, then we have to remove from other articles as well. I also think that the pupropse of the gallery is to include photos of Greece. No one can specify what is representative of a country. Some can say it is the Isthmus channel some might say a sandy beach in Skiathos. In fact I would go with the beaches since Greece is the place of the beaches, while the Isthmus Channel is neither a representative of Greece per se, nor the greatest technologival marvel that Greece can show. And that is my point. No one can judge on what is representative. So i think we should treat the Gallery what is intented for: The term "Gallery" implies photos. Relevant photos of the subject we are discussing: Greece. Photos about Greece. Landscapes about Greece, monuments about Greece, buildings in Greece, beaches in Greece, etc etc.Avionics1980 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's keep it at 24. Greece is very photogenic after all. That said, I think some pics in the current gallery should definitely be replaced (e.g. Florina, Samaria, Trikala, Karlovasi, etc..). We already have way too many town squares, buildings, and beaches, and not enough ancient and medieval monuments. Athenean (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that Avionics1980 has been blocked as a sock of indef-banned user User:Mywayyy. If anybody isn't happy with edits he pushed through, they can be reverted any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Protectorate

Is Greece not a protectorate of the European Union? If not officially then atleast by convention. This does not seem to be covered. MrTranscript (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7150118/Greece-under-EU-protectorate-as-funds-shift-fire-to-Portugal.html http://guidoromero.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/greece-under-eu-protectorate/ http://serbhellenic.16.forumer.com/a/british-europarliamentarian-greece-reduced-to-protectorate_post2168.html MrTranscript (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The first link mentioned "protectorate" twice, once in the title and once in this sentence: "The Greek Left said the measures reduce Greece to an economic protectorate". Wordpress are forumer don't look like WP:RS man with one red shoe 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think 'protectorate' is just journalistic hyperbole. However, the Economy section strangely makes no mention of the bail-out loans or indeed the crisis in confidence in Greece's ability to pay its debts. I've corrected this. DeCausa (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is just a hyperbole of the Press. We have given away part of or sovereignty (on economic matters) as every government decision needs IMF approval, but we are by no means a protectorate. Good job on the 2010 crisi summary DeCausa! --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's not ignore that Ireland's economy is in worse shape than that of Greece. We also appear to ignore the fact that the rest of the western world is on the edge of a precipice economically. It's not just Greece. Greece just happens to be the n-word "in the woodpile", in the English-speaking media, as usual (nothing new there). And use of the word "protectorate" is nonsense. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside the offensive racist phrase, of the two sources you added to support your addition, one says that Greece's deficit is worse than Ireland, and the other is a deadlink. I've therefore amended it to reflect the source you cited. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I only added one reference. It was not a deadlink. AND I can add a hundred other references that back up the fact that Ireland has worse debt GDP-wise than Greece. Moreover, why is the "2010 economic crisis" at the top of the "Economy" section. Is there any reason for it to be at the top? Or can it be placed at the bottom? Or do you have a reason for it being at the top whilst ignoring Ireland's towering inferno of a deficit (never mind the deficits of the UK, Spain, and Italy which are vastly greater than those of Greece or Ireland but that's another issue altogether). This economic crisis, as far as Greece is concerned, is a national issue. The maritime industry however is internationally important. I think that the maritime industry is more important than the economic crisis and should take precedence. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to AGF by assuming English is not your first language and therefore don't fully understand the impact of using the phrase you used regardless of the context. Using "N-Word" doesn't make it any better. The 2010 crisis is obviously a very sensitive issue for you but you need to calm down - your last sentence is unwarranted in particular. Firstly, the fact is the 2010 crisis is probably the most significant economic event in Greece in the last 30 years. There are are only a handful of countries in the world with a worse deficit position. Additionally, the revelations about the Greek government's manipulation of economic data disclosed to the EU is highly significant; as indeed is the loss of control and sovereignty over the country's economic policy. That is why it should be at the top. Why are you trying to artificially down-play it? Secondly, I am ignoring the situation in other countries because this is an article about Greece. Why would other countries be covered? I haven't seen any 'jostling' and you placed the Eurostat source (which I had originally inserted) against your claim. The Eurostat source makes it clear that Greece's defecit is worse. The source you've now added (which was previously a deadlink) is merely speculation as to what might turn out to be the case. The Eurostat source is an 'audit' statement. I'm reverting your edit because (a) you provided no reliable source to evidence the word "jostling" and (b) you have yet to provide areliable source saying Ireland's debt is worse. I'm happy to drop this if you can provide proper sources for your statement - but even then it could only say that sources conflict over whether Ireland or Greece has the worse deficit because of the Eurostat source. I would ask you to take a more mature attitude to this. The purpose of the article is to provide information not to be a platform to cheer for 'your team'. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The single source that I have added quotes Eurostat. It shows a Eurostat graph. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
But it's speculation - the 2010 figure won't be known for some time DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you've amended your posting of 13:40 and taken out the inflammatory language. Good move. I would have posted differently had that been your original posting. Can suggest that we add on to the end something like "although many have speculated that Ireland's deficit in 2010 will prove to be worse" if you can add a second source to justify the "many". DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added two more sources. Although, I personally do not agree that it is speculation I will accept your suggestion. There are others who have the opportunity to disagree with you. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)
I've made a reference to speculation that Ireland is in a worse position. Just one further point: the 2010 crisis should also be the first sub-heading because before that is the general intro to the economy - and it leads on from that as currently the most important feature of the general economy. The other subjects deal with sections of the economy. Also, it makes little sense to make the general comments on the economy (many of which relate back to better times) without qualifying very quickly with the current situation. By the way, the general into isn't very good (who cares about collectable coinage!!!) bjut I don't have the time to re-write it. DeCausa (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, a Gallery is not part of country articles. Italiano111 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The image gallery mainly repeats the images that are already in place. There is no extravalue. Because of the recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries the gallery has been removed. Italiano111 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I dont agree with you. In the gallery are represented places and sites of Greece which are not represented in the main section
It was not me who created the gallery section (but its a common practice in many articles as you can see), but I decorated it and it is not kind to remove it cause simply you dont agree with it
So i think it would be better to leave editors from Greece, who know better than you the "Greek" subjects, to edit the article. Or you can try to improve the article if you think so, but with not removing anything that you dont like.Greco22 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I am not a fan of galleries at the end of articles. I note that there has been another discussion concerning the gallery above this one. It looks like there were no plans to delete the gallery in the above discussion. What I suggest is that you both state your cases here and let others discuss and decide. Meanwhile, move on to something else. I have noticed that there are many galleries at the end of articles. Some bigger than others. I think that the gallery here is big and that images can be deployed through relevant articles i.e. they don't have to be placed in a large gallery in this article. Anyway that's just my opinion. I have no doubt that there are Wikipedians who have a much more austere approach to galleries. I wouldn't be surprised if they wade in here. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


I note that there are already a lot of images. I think the gallery overburdens the article and the pictures should be in the specific relevant articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Greece

Shouldn't the term "Republic of Greece" also be included in the infobox? I am looking at one of the 1980 passports of Greece, and the term "Hellenic Republic" is never mentioned. Instead, the passport only mentions "Republic of Greece". I believe it deserves at least a mention in the article, for instance "...or sometimes the Republic of Greece..." or something similar. --Philly boy92 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Was that in Greek or was there a translation in English. If the latter maybe it was just an inaccurate translation? DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
English, but it appears on both passports that my grandparents had between 1980 and 1990. It appears as "Republic of Greece" and "Republique de Grece" on all instances, with no exception. The only mention of "Hellenic" is on nationality (Hellenic/Hellenique). To give you an idea:
"The diplomatic and consular authorities of the Republic of Greece and the authorities of friendly countries are kindly requested to grant any legitimate protection and assistance to the bearer of this passport."
The same is also written in French ("Les authorites diplomatiques et consulaires de la Republique de Grece") and in Greek. The front of the passport also says "ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ, REPUBLIQUE DE GRECE, REPUBLIC OF GREECE". --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Davegggg, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Just wanted to add the wiki page called "Tourism in Greece" under the #7 "See also"

Davegggg (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's already referrenced in the Tourism sub-section of the Economy section. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Per DeCausa. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

external links tourism

the link "Greek National Tourism Organisation" it is not correct someone has to change it to www.visitgreece.gr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasfilis (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

In line with other articles, perhaps the etymology for Greece (and Hellas) should be entered into the article. Donquigleone (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's why people want Greece to default

http://nowandfutures.com/d2/Top50_CDS_Gross_notional20081031.htm Turkey holds most of CDS capital in the world. --212.54.222.187 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thought. But with that much leverage (25x) it is Turkey that has got the problem. The markets only have to move 4 per cent against their favor and Turkey blows the whole lot.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that wikipedia talk pages are not forums, thanks. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ethnic groups

There is no ethnic albanian minority in Hellas. It is not recognized by hellenic constitution. All albanians in Hellas are economic immigrants. They dont have hellenic citizenship. So correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.60.139 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If the infobox refered to ethnic minorities then it would say ethnic minorities. It says ethnic groups, unless the 700,000 Albanians don't live in Greece and go back to albania at the end of the day. --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It doesn't matter what Greece's constitution recognizes, Wikipedia doesn't function according to Greek constitution. man with one red shoe 00:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hello there! First of all let me express my opinion in regards with the images in Greece article: They are way too few, especially for the history and culture of this country taking into account also other countries articles. If you read other countries articles, you area amazed by the number of images ("sandwitched" or not, whatever that means:)). It is unclear why there are so few images, but I try to help this by adding and/or replacing a few. Two of those images show a) The AUEB university building and b) Egnatia Odos. The first is correctly placed in the Education section and its not about the building, i.e. whether is imressive or not (we are not trying to impress here, neither we are in a contest) but about a building of a university with rather great history. I just thought to add it as well. The second image shows Egnatia Odos and is correctly shown in the Transport Section. When the article says that "since the 80s the road network has been significantly modernized" and also refers to Egnatia Odos, I think its pretty straigh forward that you need to include a photo of this great road project, which is one of the greatest contruction projects carried out in Greece in the recent years, and certainly the greatest in terms of road contruction.Nochoje (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a general article about the country, and specialized images such as this are not really needed. Off course the aueb picture can be added in the 'Education of Greece' article but if we put this in 'Greece', then I see no reason why aueb is preferred among 20 Universities and 15 pg schools of Greece. Also per sandwich both pictures (Egnatia too) should be discussed before we add them in this overcrowed article. Off course we should remove equal number of pictures.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this article is not overcrowded in terms of images in relation always to other articles image numbers. Just take a look at other countries. Why is so that other articles have so vast image numbers and Greece article not?
Anyway, I understand your point about AUEB, but I strongly believe that 1 image for Egnatia should definitely stay since we are talking about THE most important road project in Greece for the last years.Nochoje (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suggest to replace the Attiki Odos picture with an Egnatia one. About the number of pictures we can take some ideas from high quality country articles, such as Germany and Bulgaria.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sandwiching is when you put text between two images, and wikipedia discourages it (see Manual of Style: images for more). --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Name Dispute

Greece boarders FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Check the United Nations this is how they are recognized. So when the UN accepts the change the whole world will too!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro2004 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. No one cares about this bizarre Greek obsession. From the Republic of Macedonia article:
"most United Nations member countries have abandoned the provisional reference [i.e. FYROM] and have recognised the country as the Republic of Macedonia instead. These include four of the five permanent UN Security Council members—the United States, (ref:"US snubs Greece over Macedonia". BBC News Online. 4 November 2004. Retrieved 2006-10-01.) Russia, United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China; several members of the European Union such as Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovenia; and over 100 other UN members. (Ref: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Opinion/comm_20050916Tziampiris.html Naming the solution, Kathimerini English edition, 16 September 2005)"
DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
hardly a "bizarre obsession", please refer to the ministry of external affairs for a complete analysis of the Greek POV here before making such vague statements.
In any case, this article is on the English wikipedia and therefore the more widely recognized Macedonia (Republic of) will be used, instead of the pro-Greek Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You will notice that there is extensive use of simply Macedonia, which links to Macedonia (Greece), but there are also a few links to Republic of Macedonia to differentiate the two. This has been discussed endless times before, lets not start one of those really long discussions again. Philly boy92 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That what was my point, so there was no reason for you to post and thereby increase the chances of it turning into "one of those really long discussions again". And by the way, I am fully aware of the Greek governement position on this and equally fully entitled to call it a bizarre Greek obsession if that is my opinion, which it is. DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Bizarre, huh? If only was that simple... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The name dispute is quite relevent when the map on the profile of Greece has Rep. Macedonia instead of F.Y.R.O.M, it suggests that wikipedia is politically motivated in doing so... furthermore it is offensive to Greeks from Macedonia and wikipedia should strictly use the title of F.Y.R.O.M instead of Rep. Macedonia, as recognised by the UN, due to the international nature of the site as well as its policy of "neutrality". Picking Republic of Macedonia is taking sides UN regulation is the norm. 92.236.81.144 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)ΑΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΙΣ

No, "Republic of Macedonia" is the norm - see this which is why Wikipedia follows the naming policy most generally accepted globally. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). -- Philly boy92 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC

after reading "the see this" section it only reaffirms that FYROM is the norm and the fact that many countries have recognised it in bilateral relations as Rep. Macedonia dose not mean that they have recognised it in international talks as even the US reffers to FYROM as FYROM in international organisations such as the UN, NATO, WTO etc... Do you need to better understand the procedure and precedent basis of international law, in order to understand that the countries that have recognised FYROM as Rep. Macedonia have done so only on a bilateral basis and not on the intrnational level! so you are wrong and in fact i think you should change the bloody name on the map since the page concerns Greece and not FYROM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.81.144 (talk • contribs) at 00:49, 21 March 2011.

I was one of the referees who oversaw the creation of the current policy regarding the naming of the state self-identified as "Republic of Macedonia". When speaking of using either the acronym "FYROM" or the full title "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to refer to the sovereign state, it was decided that both monikers are unnecessary for the purpose of Wikipedia.
The term "Macedonia" is often ambiguous when referring to subjects related to Greece in some way, as it may be unclear whether it refers to the region, to Greece's northern neighbor, or to something else. Saying simply, for example, "Macedonian cuisine is noted for..." could be very unclear, and would likely require disambiguation (contrast a statement such as "The Macedonian military consists of...", where such confusion is less likely).
The primary (and almost sole) argument against the use of "Republic of Macedonia" was that most (practically all) international organizations refer to the country as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While we noted this, we also noted that the cause of this almost exclusively lies in the objections of the Greek delegations to the various organizations which the nation styled "Republic of Macedonia" applied for membership after the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. This, we decided, meant that the UN, NATO, et al. were not implicitly supporting the Greek position in the matter; rather, the foreign ministry of the new nation-state acquiesced to Greece's objections because they (the new country) wished very strongly to join the global community through membership in these organizations as quickly as possible.
Actually, when the policy was being hammered out, the primary debate lay in whether to refer to the country as "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia". As I said before, the arguments for using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" because of the UN, NATO, etc. seemed at best to be founded on very shaky ground. Other reasons, such as historical perspective, were (at least in my own opinion) far beyond our ability to accurately judge, and in any case are not really relevant to the issue at hand (a simple style guide).
In the end,
  1. Nearly all common English-language press and literature refers to the country as either "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia".
  2. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM" are practically never used in common English speech or literature. Some, most notably Google Maps and some other similar services, use "Macedonia (FYROM)" , but almost never "FYROM" by itself.
  3. "Republic of Macedonia" is the direct English translation of the country's official self-identification, Република Македонија.
  4. The term "Republic of Macedonia" is sufficient to prevent any confusion of terms.
  5. Of the countries which have diplomatic relationships with the state, the majority refer to the country as "Republic of Macedonia". Of the remaining countries, the vast majority do not have a clear stance on the issue, with relatively few explicitly referring to it as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
Given these, and noting that the purpose of a style guide is to facilitate readability, not further an international political dispute, we decided that it would be most consistent and accurate to refer to the country as either "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia" is unambiguous situations. "FYROM" and its expansion were deemed unnecessary, and therefore, we recommended that they not be used.
Now, I have no desire to reopen a very old can of worms by saying all this. I view the issue as closed, and I do not wish to engage in a lengthy argument about the problem. I merely wish to state that I feel the rationale behind the style guide is reasonable and justified, and to explore the reasons for which the style guide was written the way it was. Political motivation had nothing to do with the decision at all. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I do not have any stake in the issue whatsoever. I am a fifth-generation American, with primarily French (note my surname) and German ancestry (some other from northern Europe may be there as well). My own personal view of the issue is that it is rather petty, and I think both sides take themselves too seriously. That is the extent of my personal opinion. From what I can remember of my discussions with the other referees, their stakes and opinions in and on the matter are roughly the same. J.delanoygabsadds 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful (and interesting) - I've never seen the reasoning spelled out like that. It might be useful to include a summary of it in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia) as it is just a bare statement of style without rationale (or maybe that would just open the can of worms unnecessarily?) DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Google search on FYROM and on Republic of Macedonia brings up the same volume of results. How was the later deemed to be more popular? Country names, like country boarders are claimed by the countries themselves, but are established and legalised by international convention, like the UN. A country might have heroes, but the rest of the world can call them criminals. It is irrelevant if Greece wants to call them Skopians, while they call themselves Macedonians. UN is the arbiter and for the time being, the country's name is FYROM. The less bias wiki is the more accurate it will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.241.16 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A few responses:
If you enclose the terms in quotes, the latter falls dramatically, but this fails to account for the fact that the nation-state self-identifying as 'Republic of Macedonia' is most often referred to in English as simply 'Macedonia'. Therefore, there will not be very many mentions of the official name, because to most English speakers, there is no need to differentiate 'macedonia', as it rarely refers to anything other than the modern nation-state in most contexts. I was unable to formulate a query for 'macedonia' that removed mentions to the historic state led by Alexander, or the modern Greek region, etc., so I was unable to determine the distribution of that term. However, a news query for 'macedonia' returns a vast number of articles referring to the country, and practically none for anything else (I saw a few references to the ancient kingdom).
With regard to the terms in quotes, you must note that ALL (as in 100%) of the results returned for the exact phrase "republic of macedonia" will also be returned in a query for the exact phrase "former yugoslav republic of macedonia", so this data is poisoned and useless. Finally, Google's algorithm has apparently realized what "fyrom" means, as searching for "fyrom" returns practically identical results as 'former yugoslav republic of macedonia'.
If you are interested, I answered this notion a few months ago on this same page. If you scroll a bit above your comment, you will find what is probably a more succinct argument.


With regard to your remarks about the role of the United Nations in this problem, you greatly misunderstand the role which that body plays in the global community of nations. Your statement that "[country] names, like country [borders] are claimed by the countries themselves, but are established and legalised by international convention, like the UN." is completely incorrect. No international body determines what designation nation-states may use or do use for themselves. When extending diplomatic recognition or membership to an international body, it is customary to use the self-identification of the nation-state to refer to that state, but any country or international body is free to use any term they choose, whether or not any other states/bodies use that identifier. Relationships between nation-states (also between nation-states and international bodies) are agreed upon and entered into solely at the consent of both parties, and there is no third party that has the power to interfere with this.
In the specific case of the Republic of Macedonia, the reason for its admission to the United Nations under the term "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is very simple:
  1. The state was formed as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and wished to join the community of nations as soon as possible.
  2. Currently, one of the best ways to do this is to join the United Nations.
  3. Greece adamantly refused to allow the new state to enter with the name "Republic of Macedonia". In order to be admitted, the Macedonian delegation agreed to (what was supposed to be) a temporary compromise (FYROM was, and is, explicitly a "provisional reference". This is why the Macedonian delegation is seated in the General Assembly as if their state's name began with the letter "T").
At the time, the Macedonian delegation (and practically all of the UN member states) apparently believed that a final agreement between Greece and the new state would be reached within a few years, so most states extended recognition using the UN provisional reference. However, it has been nearly twenty years, and no solution has been found, as both nations are refusing to budge. Apparently, many states view Greece's position as unreasonable, so they abandoned the provisional reference, and extended recognition to Macedonia using its constitutional name. The UN has continued to use the reference primarily because (unsurprisingly) Greece would without a doubt object to any attempts to change the UN designation.


In summary, 'macedonia' is the most common term in English for the state constitutionally named 'Republic of Macedonia', and there exists no international body that determines what a country is referred to as. Even if the United Nations did do this, it has explicitly stated that 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' is provisional, so there is no doubt that the name would not be used. Furthermore, if a state's name was determined by "international convention", the state's name would be "Republic of Macedonia", as the majority of nations use "Republic of Macedonia" to in bilateral relations. Also, see the comment I made on 21 March. J.delanoygabsadds 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Your search for Republic of Macedonia with no quotes brought so many results because most of them was for "Republic" only. Criticising Google’s algorithms when we don’t even understand how simple searches work is a bit too much!
Every country can call themselves whatever they want. Other countries will call them whatever the UN calls these countries. UN usually calls them whatever the countries want to be called, except if there is a dispute between them and another country. Then, the UN plays the roll of the arbiter, which is why it was created for.
When the new country of FYROM wanted to be called a name used in a Greek region, UN gave them a temporary name until they resolve the issue. The fact that FYROM is been using the name of the Greek region for its own name does not make it right or legal. FYROM has dug in its 20 year old leg and try to stick with the name, and so has Greece with its 10000 old leg. Good stupid fun. But the best unbiased name for wiki is the one that UN is using. Anything else will be disputed for ever. If wiki is about knowledge and not debate, then the UN should be followed.
In my eyes, this wiki choice is bias. Try this argument: “I won’t be surprise if donations from US government was given to wiki with specific instructions. US loves placing footholds in areas, like Turkey, for their controlling games. US grasped the opportunity to control FYROM from its birth, that is why they recognised them with the name they wanted, ignoring then UN, like they did with Iraq.” As I said, wiki should not be bias or judgmental. UN is the law and wiki should follow it or else it will appear as bias. It would have been so simple and clean. Now wiki appears as it knows better than the UN, the International Court of Justice in Hague and any other of the thousand lawyers trying to resolve this. This small group of wiki fans thought they knew better. Bit rude? It just doesn't look good or right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.192.192 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A Google search for republic brings up totally different results from a search for republic of macedonia. There is no error in my conclusions there.
"Other countries will call them whatever the UN calls these countries. UN usually calls them whatever the countries want to be called, except if there is a dispute between them and another country. Then, the UN plays the roll of the arbiter, which is why it was created for." I already explained that this is patently false. If you do not listen to me, there is nothing I can do. Countries call other nations whatever they want to. As evidence, see this: "[As of] 18 January 2011, 131 countries use the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia.[156]" The UN does not have power to arbitrate anything, it can only mediate, as there is no way for the UN itself to force countries to do anything (although it can and does recommend courses of action, and these are usually followed by most members, there is no requirement for them to do so).
The United States government does not offer Wikipedia money to do anything. In the case of the issue at hand, the decision was formed by after a lengthy and detailed public discussion by public request of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. A team of three referees (of which I was one) reviewed the arguments and came to a final decision, which was implemented and posted on the first page I linked there. To come to our decision as neutrally as possible, all three of us reviewed the arguments independently, drew our conclusions, and then compared notes. If I remember correctly, we all reached the same conclusions with regard to all the issues. Therefore, if the United States wanted to "pay off" anyone in order to influence that discussion, someone would have had to approach me at some point during the time arguments were posted. This never happened, and no one attempted to contact me privately in order to influence my decision. Indeed, the primary argument at the time revolved around whether to name the article simply Macedonia, instead of Republic of Macedonia. Given that we decided the latter (which is more favorable to the Greek position than having the modern country's article at Macedonia instead of that page being a disambiguation page), are you suggesting that someone from the Greek government paid us off to do that? This is aside from the fact that I can think of no reason for the United States to care at all about the issue in the first place. Officially recognizing the nation as "Republic of Macedonia" would have a far, FAR greater effect than anything they could do on a mere website. I don't think you truly understand how little anyone outside of your countries really cares about the problem. I can honestly say without any hesitation that I. do. not. care. I made my recommendation that we not use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" based on the fact that no one in the English press ever refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". They use "Macedonia" practically 100% of the time, but I still think the term is ambiguous enough that it is better to have the article at "Republic of Macedonia".
Unless you can come up with a new argument, this is the extent of my replies to this current thread. You are obviously not reading anything that I am writing, and I have heard every one of your arguments scores of times over the past couple of years. Each time, I reply with the exact same thing, and no one ever reads a damn thing I say. J.delanoygabsadds 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
ok this is becoming really stupid and -quite frankly- annoying. Before accusing people of being bribed by the CIA or something consider for a moment that if you dont like how wikipedia operates, no one is forcing you to use wikipedia. This has been discussed time and time again. Greece does not have exclusive rights to the word 'Macedonia' so just get over it and move on with your life, and stop filling wikipedia's servers with mindless comments about the US bribing wikipedia to choose 'Macedonia' over FYROM. The way you speak about this is as if the US government uses wikipedia to plan its foreign policy. Get over it people. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I would reiterate how little anyone outside of your countries really cares about the problem. All neutral observers understand and appreciate what you (J.delanoy) have written. I'm afraid that those with a certain agenda aren't interested in what you have to say and, sadly, it probably is pointless trying to explain it to them. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It is evident by the way you mediators respond to my comments that you are not able to reach to an independent and evidence based conclusion. You twisted my comments, you assumed my ethnicity and wrote in bold that "you don't care". I just offered you my 5 cents, you go ahead and play your silly games, you powerful wikipuppet masters. Seriously!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.192.192 (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus in Europe on what to Call FYROM. / R Macedonia or in the world. Most the Med countries like Greece use Fyrom (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France etc) where as the UK/ Turkey/ USA use 'Macedonia.' Greece uses Fyrom, like Nato, UN, Uefa, EU, FIFA etc however, after many wars and many bizarre arguments like Google hits etc, all this has been ignored and instead of finding a neutral position, certain editors have created a norm of doing what the USA and UK do, calling the country 'Macedonia.' Therefore until Wiki gets some neutral editors, Greece will have to use 'Macedonia' to comply with what the country calls itself, not what the worlds biggest organisations use, FYROM.. Reaper7 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Ethicity groups in Greece

On what basis the percentage of 4% of Albanian ethnic population is attributed to Greece ? Although this percentage is presented as reliable information, there is no apparent source to support this claim. The 4% figure should be revised as there is no such minority in this country. Temporary foreign workers with Albanian passports or unauthorized immigrants of the same ethnicity should not be confused with resident ethnic groups, as this assumption may consist a serious challenge of the actual identity of the Greek population today and at the same time may put in question the impartiality of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COSKAND (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

'Ethnic groups' refers to the dominant ethnic groups in the country, and language is one means of determining it. Eurostat reports that 8.3% of the population is non-Greek, i.e. of a foreign nationality or ethnic group residing within the country. This is also backed by the CIA World Factbook, which states that 7% of the population are non-Greeks. Additionally, the National Statistics Agency of Greece reports that there are 761813 foreigners, 6.95% of the total population of the country, but that is the 2001 census. The same report lists Albanians at a 4% of the population. 'Ethnic group' does not necessarily mean 'ethnic minority'. While there is a large number of ethnic Albanians in Greece, they do not constitute a 'minority', since they are not Greek citizens. --Philly boy92 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the logic and statistic results coming from the above mentioned services, half of Greece’s population should be foreigners, speaking tens of languages, –at least during the summer months- as the entire country is overwhelmingly invaded by a multitude of millions, consisted by either regular tourists, illegal immigrants, seasonal workers and many other categories of temporary visitors. 'Ethnic groups' should indeed refer to the dominant ETHNIC groups in the country, no doubt that language is one of the main ways of determining them, therefore ETHNICITY statistics should refer ONLY to the registered citizens of the country bearing the country’s passport and if as mentioned, this figure of 4% “does not constitute a 'minority'” , then why is it still appearing in the Wikipedia front page as if a large ETHNIC minority existed among the Greek population ? Is it placed there only to state Albania’s temporary workers for some reason? Please do all necessary to remove this doubtful statistic figure as it seems much bigger than the total of all the permanent ethnic minorities together in the entire country, which sum around 2%.

And yet again we have to face the hardcore Greek policy of "only Greeks live in Greece". This is an encyclopedia and not the international lobby of Greek politics and policies. The number should be kept, since "ethnic groups" means the ethnicities that reside within the country and not the ethnic minorities of the country. Needless to say that your comment about the tourists is completely irrelevant, since Eurostat, the CIA world factbook and the Hellenic National Statistics Agency all talk about people with a permament resident address in Greece, and not seasonal tourists, illegal immigrants or anything similar. --Philly boy92 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That section is referring to the ethnic makeup of those resident in Greece regardless of citizenship. While that may be ambiguous in this article, it is clearer in articles of other countries where there is a much larger percentage of resident foreign nationals.--Ptolion (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It should start with 94% "Greek citizens", "not foreign citizens" or something from the sort beacause most of the ethnic paragraphs in the other countries are about ethnicities and if you read all them together and compare you are becoming totally confused which of them are for ethnicity and which for citizenship. The CIA source exactly says "93.8% Greeks and 7.8% foreign citizens". Pensionero (UTC)
I have edited the Ethnic Groups section to read "Ethnic Groups (by citizenship; 2001)". There is no need to add "Greek Citizens" etc when the links themselves link to Greeks, Albanians etc. Also, boldface is only used on specific cases, before bolding "93.8% Greek" please read Manual of Style: Boldface. As it is not a definition list, boldface is forbidden. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In the page Greeks in the infobox for Greece the number of all citizens is used so the name "Greek citizens" could be used the redirect. I bolded it because in other countries the first ethnic group is bold and as it write in MOS:BOLD table headers can be bolded. Pensionero (UTC)
Table headers yes, but this is not a table, it is a list of ethnicities. The header, which is already bolded, is "Ethnic Groups". I think there is no need to use "Greek citizens", the sidebar already says "by citizenship", therefore the "Greeks" implies "Greek citizenship". --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. "Ethnicity" and "citizenship" are two completely different things. Saying "Ethnic groups by citizenship" makes no sense at all. You will also note that three of the four sources used avoid that mistake. Anyway, I don't see why we need four sources to state the same thing, so I will remove the CIA factbook and leave the other 3. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Pensionero, I would be really careful with the reverts if I were you. Athenean (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
To be completely honest here, I don't think there is any reason to include anything related to citizenship. I believe the people who have the problem with the 4% Albanian figure are those who think that only Greeks live in Greece, primarily the nationalists. The infobox is supposed to provide basic information about the country, not detailed information about its ethnic structure. I see no problem with just leaving it as "ethnic groups" and "93.8% Greek, .....". The article makes it clear that firstly Greece is relatively homogenous ethnicity-wise, that it does not recognize minorities (apart from the Turkish one) and that most of the Albanians are immigrants. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"Ethnic groups" is fine, it's not what I object to. What I object to is the "Ethnicity by citizenship" nonsense. That makes absolutely no sense. Athenean (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the economic crisis in Greece sadly the vast majority of Albanians have left and returned to Albania as there is no work and they own virtually no property in Greece. Hopefully if Greece begins to recover and the construction sector re-boots they can return. There are countless articles on this and it is very sad. Most the places I have been have no Albanians left and they were never proper residents, but economic immigrants who put down no roots and left. There is no way 4% today anyway. In London for example, you have many ethnic groups who hold British passports and have property and children in London schools with British passports. The Albanians of Greece stayed until the work ran out recently and left. They did not buy property, pay taxes or seek Greek nationality. They only wanted to be paid in Euros, which until the economic crisis was easy in the construction sector. That is not comparable to London/ British Ethnic groups and anyone who has ever set foot in Greece - even as a tourist would have seen the Albanians were temporary workers, not like the Turks of Germany who stayed and bought property in Germany for example. I hope one day the Albanians return en masse because I am not going to pay a Greek to fix my garage and get ripped off!! The CIA world fact book or 11 year old stats, where this 4% figure came from was never true anyway, especially now it is no-where near 4,3%. // The muslims in Northern Greece count as an actual ethnic group because they are actual residents who live, get educated, own property and pray permanently in Greece (hold Greek passports also). Here are some articles on the Albanians returning to Albanian:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/01/us-albania-greece-migrants-idUSTRE6503WB20100601 http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/06/21/feature-06

Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As it known citizenhip groups and ethnic groups are 2 different things and one could be Spanish from Moldova. In Demographics paragraph is already written that 94% were Greek citizens, 4 Albanian and etc. and after that there is no reason this list to remain in the infobox as it only confuses. Naming all Greek citizens ethnic Greeks or Albanian ethnic Albanians or any isn't incorrect for encyclopedia? Pensionero (UTC)

"This figure includes besides ethnic Greeks - also Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians, Romanians and Greek citizens of other ethnic groups which couldn't report their ethnicity." is complete WP:OR, along with most of the edits to the immigration section and should be removed. Athenean (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
^^ agreed. Original research should be removed. I am reverting the page back to its original state before Pensionero's first edit. Any further edits on the matter are highly discouraged until a consensus has been reached here first. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg This map has WP:OR and is clear that some persons of these linguistic minorities, whether few or much have other than Greek self-consciousness and is not disadvantage to write them, I haven't write how many are them just that they exist with obscure number. For the ethnic paragraph in the infobox the most soluble way is to clarify in Demographics how many are Greek, Albanian citizens and etc. and to delete the ethnic paragraph in the infobox beacause Greece haven't counted ethnic groups in the last census and is really paradox to show citizens in ethnic groups whether "by citizenship" is written or not, as you said citizenship and ethnic groups are 2 different things. Pensionero (UTC)

Edit request from Marioka, 17 April 2011


Marioka (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

May I offer some light on the matter. The census of 2001 found that there wew circa 11m citizens living in Greece 98% being Greek and 2% of muslim minority in Thrace Only.The reality is that no other resident was acounted for at the time. Albanians and all other residents (Philipinos, Chinese, Pakistani & Westerners) therefore dont help to make up the 11m figure. There is no doubt that these people are there however and will have to be accounted in addition to the 11m. Therefore the true population in Greece maybe 12m or 13m depending on which report you beleive is the closest to the true figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.210 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Events that happened after 2000 are listed under "20th Century". This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.162.6 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"A developed country with an advanced,[14][15] high-income economy .." Time to re-write this characterization of the country's economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the economic crisis makes Greece (1) a non-advanced and (2) low-income economy. The Greek economy -despite the state's inability to collect taxes effectively and other problems- is indeed an advanced one. Even in the current crisis, it is ranked in the top 35 in the world. Additionally, a high-income economy is one whose Gross National Income is more than US$12,000. --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Advanced economy?

I think that this is reasonably misleading to have the lead paragraph without the context that this is an IMF category. At least, the qualifier that this is nomenclature / categorisation used by the IMF would be useful here, because the Economy of Greece would not really be described as "far on or ahead in development or progress" as advanced is usually defined (by the OED), and it is misleading to readers who want a quick overview of the country. Also, I think the IMF's position on the economy of Greece may have changed since April. Do we have a more up to date source about what the IMF thinks of the Economy of Greece? I think it should be removed, what do others think? 121.98.83.76 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Edit I see this was mentioned further up the page, and poorly articulated. My suggestion is not that it is deleted, because obviously the IMF is one of the benchmarks for such definitions. Rather, it should not be in the lead, or at least if it is to remain there it should be qualified.121.98.83.76 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Are there any comparables in other articles?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should be changed per se, the economic crisis does not change the fact that -in the larger picture- Greece's economy is indeed an advanced and high-income one. Rather, I think it would be appropriate to phrase the sentence something like this: "A developed country with an advanced,[14][15] high-income economy,[16] the country has been facing financial difficulties due to its public debt since 2009 (142.8% in 2010). With a very high Human Development Index (22nd highest in the world as of 2010) and consistently high quality of life rankings,[17][18][19] Greece has been a member of what is now the European Union since 1981 and the eurozone since 2001,[20] NATO since 1952,[21] and the European Space Agency since 2005.[22]". --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think something along the lines of what you have suggested Phillyboy 92 would be a useful addition to the article's lead. 121.98.83.76 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Population Of Greece

I think the article should mention what the population of Greece is in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.104.146 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Country Name

Since the latest events, name should be changed to Hellenic Police State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiectum (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Index of Economic Freedom"

Original: "In 2009, Greece had the EU's second lowest Index of Economic Freedom (after Poland), ranking 81st in the world.[51]"

While I would strongly suggest removing this sentence (on grounds that its implication is biased and controversial, and it comes from two extremely conservative sources that themselves are highly controversial), this is a suggested edit if it is to remain:

"The Heritage Foundation( a conservative think tank) and the Wall St. Journal publish an Index of Economic Freedom. While the correlation between this index and economic prosperity is controversial, in 2009 Greece ranked the second lowest...etc."

98.154.13.181 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

to have that edit you'll need to come up with some very solid sourcing on the "controversial" POV. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.218.234.166, 3 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

According to what Police state is and how Rome is ruled now government of greece should change to police state. From Police state wikipedia The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

88.218.234.166 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Police brutality was used extensively on June 28-29 with the aim of dispursing the crowds that had been gathered in front of parliament for 37 days, and it failed to stop the mostly peaceful protests. However, lets not get OTT here, Greece is not a police state. The police has no authority in the economic, social or political life of the country.--Philly boy92 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical moments in infobox

I feel that a couple of pre-1821 historical events from Greek history should be added in infobox (for example fall of the Byz. Empire, or the Golden Age of Pericles). This is in accordance with most country infoboxes that include events before their Independence (Germany with the HRE, France with Francia, Bulgaria with the Medieval Bulgarian State).Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I propose 338 BC, the date of formation of the League of Corinth as the first unified Greek state, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Athenean (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but apart from the L. of Corinth we can add the Great Amphictyonic League, as the first (non-mythical) political entity.Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be against that, 'Greece' did not exist as a single entity until the revolution and the declaration of independence which established a provisional government (1.1.1822). Even in Roman years, 'Greece' was a region and civilization, not a country. Therefore I believe that such dates should not be included in the infobox, simply because they are debatable. The only one I could tolerate would the the Hellenic League under Philip II/Alexander III, a confederation who called themselves 'the Greeks'. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire would be completely out of place in the infobox in my opinion, although Greeks played the most important role in the Empire, it was not 'Greece'. Also keep in mind that infoboxes should only contain essential information. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Excactly, although the modern state declared its Independence in 1822 it wasn't the first political entity in history known as 'Greece' (Hellas). The 4th c. BC Hellenic (or Corinthian) League is fine to be mentioned (since this is consistent with country infoboxes). About the Byzantine Empire, this might be somewhat problematic although it's also known as Greek Empire in modern [[2]] and (especially) western medieval literature.Alexikoua (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just by taking a quick look around at other country articles: France includes the formation of Francia under Clovis (468 AD), Germany includes the Holy Roman Empire (962 AD), Bulgaria the First Bulgarian Empire (7th century AD), Albania the Principality of Arber (1194). Instead of "Independence", these countries' infobox says "Formation". It seems like this is the way things are going these days. Just like ethnic percentages were absent from infoboxes but are found everywhere now, so it seems that a single "Independence" date has been replaced with several "Formation" dates. Athenean (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
My objection was not at including some dates before 1821/1822, but to which dates are to be used. For example, France includes Francia because it was the first state in the territory of France that eventually evolved into what is now the French Republic. The problem with Greece is there are too many "states" in the area, ranging from kingdoms to democratic city-states. As I said, I believe that including the Leage of Corinth (as Hellenic League to show the connection between the ancient and modern use of the term 'Hellenic') is the best option, I believe it is arguably the first "Greek state". As for the Byzantine Empire, I would be willing to consider adding it, but not the fall of the Empire, what is the point in that? My objection to Byzantium was that it gradually became Greek-dominated, it was not a "Greek Empire" so to speak from the moment it was founded. --Philly boy92 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Byzantium is tricky. I can't come up with an obvious date either. It transitioned into a "Greek Empire" very gradually. Initially it was a Roman state, and only after the Macedonian Dynasty did it become more "Greek", and even then, it was very multi-ethnic, and moreover was not run from Greece but from Constantinople. Greece was just another province. From the Paleologian Dynasty it became more and more of a "Greek state", but the Paleologian period is one of decline and disintegration, not formation. So best to just include the Hellenic League and it leave it at that for the time being. Athenean (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, how about this:
Formation
First unified state: 338BC, as the Hellenic League
Independence from Ottoman Empire declared: 1 January 1822, at the First National Assembly
Independence recognized: 3 February 1830, in the London Protocol
Current constitution: 11 June 1975, Third Hellenic Republic
I'm not sure if on 1 January 1822 we should have the First National Assembly or have it as "First Hellenic Republic". Thoughts? --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) That looks good to me. The only issue I have is with the 1 January 1822 date. I mean, I know that's when an assembly of some sort declared independence, but as we all know the 25th March 1821 is by far the most well-known date. From a technical point of view 1 January 1822 may be more correct, but after all the rebels in 1821 declared something. They didn't just take up arms for no reason. Athenean (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically the first to declare independence was Ypsilantis on 23 February 1821 as he declared the revolution in Wallachia on behalf of the Filiki Eteria as a diversion for the revolution to begin in the south. March 25 was chosen by the church in the 1830s to establish itself as an integral part of the new Greek state, an oportunity it had lost previously by denouncing the revolution and excommunicating Ypsilantis. Nothing important happened on March 25, and it is therefore historically inaccurate. It was chosen by the church because it is the day of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, it tied very nicely with the Palaion Patron Germanos story which never even happened. It should be mentioned in the article that this is the traditional date of the declaration of independence but it is far from the truth. Additionally I believe 1.1.1822 is the best option, it is the date of the creation of the first trully "Greek state" (albeit unrecognized for 8 years) and the date of the signing of the Greek declaration of independence as well as the first constitution. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point about the 25th. But what about 17 March 1821? That's when the revolt in Greece actually began, when the first shots were fired. I think that is a momentous date. It was then that the assembled Maniates declared war on the Ottomans and marched on Kalamata, which would become the first city to be liberated. There was no going back after the 17th. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, yes indeed there is no point in going back before March 17. Fighting in Wallachia began on the 23 February (6 March), but the real fighting started with the Maniots. I really don't think there is any reason to include the start of the war of independence, its really not that important (the United States page does not include the start of the American War of Independence, not even important events such as the Boston Tea Party) and plus, it is very hard to determine when it actually began (it would seem that the church has done a pretty good job convincing us that it began on March 25 :P). I believe that 338BC, 1.1.1822, 3.2.1830 and 11.6.1975 and sufficient information for the infobox. They are key events in the history of the nation, the creation of the first unified Greek state, the creation of the modern Greek state, the year of recognition of the said state, and the signing of the current constitution respectively. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that describes the Hellenic League as a "state"? I think it's quite problematic to call it the first unified "state". I would suggest that it would be better to replace it with something like the Great Amphictyonic League and call it the first pan-Hellenic political union. DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On the name of the Greeks

In the origin section we have "These names in turn trace their origin from Graecus, the Latin adaptation of the Greek name Γραικός, which means 'Greek' but its etymology remains uncertain". The etymology is not certain (far from uncertain though) but the phrase makes the reader think there's no known etymology for the name. The name is related to the tribe of the Graekoi, most probably connected to the region of Graea. If Graekoi are connected to Graea, then its etymology is related to "old".

Specifically:


- γραία (Ionic γραιή) = old woman
- γραϊκός = belonging to the elder woman
- γραίος = old, palaic (masc)
- Γραίκες = mothers of the Greeks

Basically, with a quick search on google books there are tons of references to add, concerning this issue.Fkitselis (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research, if you can find a reliable source that explains where the term "Graikos" etc comes from, then by all means add it to the article. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


There are numerous of sources + that the article of wikipedia on the names of the greeks have many already. Those are just some I quickly spotted that are accessible online:



http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=graia&searchmode=none


But a modern theory (put forth by German classical historian Georg Busolt, 1850-1920), derives it from Graikhos "inhabitant of Graia" (lit. "gray"), a town on the coast of Boeotia, which was the name given by the Romans to all Greeks, originally to the Greek colonists from Graia who helped found Cumae (9c. B.C.E.), the important city in southern Italy where the Latins first encountered Greeks. Under this theory, it was reborrowed in this general sense by the Greeks.



Margalit Finkelberg - Greeks and pre-Greeks: Aegean prehistory and Greek heroic tradition p.g 104
This compares well with the case of the Graikoi, a northern Hellenic tribe that gave the Hellenes their Roman designation ‘Greeks’. Aristotle actually held the two peoples to be identical, saying that the Graikoi changed their name to Hellenes, and this is repeated in other sources. Alcman in the seventh and Sophocles in the fifth century bc styled the Graikes as ‘the mothers of the Hellenes’. According to the interpretation proposed by Martin West, this ‘suggests a myth that men of the Hellenes married women of the Graikoi’: Arist. Meteor. 352b1–2; Alcman fr. 155 Page; Soph. fr. 518; Apollod. 1.7.3; West 1985: 54.


Pausanias 9.20 - Regarding the region of Graea and how it got its name (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=9:chapter=20&highlight=graea)
There is a story that, as she reached extreme old age, her neighbours ceased to call her by this name, and gave the name of Graea （old woman）, first to the woman herself, and in course of time to the city. The name, they say, persisted so long that even Homer says in the Catalogue:—“Thespeia, Graea, and wide Mycalessus.


Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos - ANCIENT GREECE: FROM THE MYCENAEAN PALACES TO THE AGE OF HOMER - Edinburgh University Press 2006
There is evidence, too, for iron smithing, bronze/copper casting and lead working in the Early Iron Age on the nearby Boeotian mainland at Oropos, which is now regarded as home to some of the first western Graikoi (Mazarakis Ainian 1998: 202–3, 212–13).

Finley Hooper - Greek realities: life and thought in ancient Greece

Among the settlers going to Italy were the Graioi from Boeotia, where Hesiod lived. The colony they helped to establish never became very famous, but themselves did because the Romans talked about the Graeci - and so today we talk about the Greeks.

John Nicolas Coldstream - Geometric Greece: 900-700 BC - Routledge 2003


The name is probably based on the Graioi, a group of eastern Boeotians who may have migrated to Cumae in the wake of their Euboean neighbours.



Btw, isn't there any editor who possesses Classical Greek to verify and approve directly glosses? Γραῖα is a quite common word in general. Here you have some references on Perseus (for graia and graios): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=grai%2Fas&la=greek&prior=ba/sis&d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0024:text=comm:commline=8&i=1

Fkitselis (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Greece the nation-state, I am not sure we need such a large section on the name. Perhaps a quick reference is enough with a link to the relevant name article? Politis (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's an entire article dedicated to this issue Name of Greece, that's where most of the stuff needs to be pushed to. man with one red shoe 21:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well. I think the best thing to include is a quick reference to the fact that Greece doesnt call itself "Greece" but rather "Hellas", and that the English term comes from the Latin Graecia. In essence, I think the first paragraph is enough, we don't need the "origins" part. --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, reduced text to more realistic proportions and added relevant link. Politis (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos removal

I really cant understand Athenean and Alexikoua. The first remove a photo because its "aestheatically" not good and the second because it has "nothing to offer". The first photo is a photo of a snow covered mountain in Epirus. Not only it shows to the reader that Greece is not only sea and sun, but also introduces to Epirus area through the photo. Aesthetically I dont think is that bad, but again this subject is debadable. The photo has been there for at least a few weeks and it was accepted. The second photo, is a photo of a major Greek hospital to support the new section "Healthcare in Greece". What is wrong to add a photo that supports the article section, especially when there is no similar one? Thanks for reading. Nochoje (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo of the Pindus forest is a very poor composition, with nothing to distinguish it. There is no subject, and moreover one can see the tunnels of the Egnatia Odos, which are ugly and ruin the picture. Not only that, but the picture is bisected in half by a lamp-post. Since you insisted, I replaced it with a much more interesting picture of spring in Agrafa, but apparently you don't do "compromise". That it has been there for a few weeks and was "accepted" means nothing: I hadn't seen it, and I don't accept it. As for the picture of the hospital in Patra, it is dreadful. Cracked pavement and overgrown grass? Is that image of healthcare in Greece you want to project? Half the building, which is itself a completely unremarkable concrete box is obscured by a pine tree. You may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:MOSIM, which says specifically Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox.. By the way, you have already reached 3 reverts very quickly. I wouldn't revert again if I were you. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Not only that, but you even insist on placing the image on the left, which totally messes up the article formatting and sandwiches the text between two images. Athenean (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you added another picture of Epirus which is pretty nice, its fine by me as well. But this attitude of "I hadnt seen it and I dont accept it" is a bit, forgive me to say, fascist as well as over and beyond the line. You dont own the article, neither wikipedia, so its not up to you to accept something or not. Its up to all of us to accept it. That the first thing. The second thing is the problem you have with Patras hospital. There is no "cracked pavement", there is just a pavement, but even if it was cracked so what? Is that how you judge if a healthcare system is good or not. Obviously you havent read the article! Anyway, in the absence of another photo about healthcare in Greece, i believe it must stay. In the following days I will take myself a picture of a Greek hospital "without cracked pavement" so I can replace this photo. But until then, it should stay.Nochoje (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What is WP:OWN and "beyond the line" is your edit-warring, for which you have been reported here [3]. You do not own the article. You add an image, I don't like it and remove it. What do you do? You edit-war to keep it because you are "right". Because this is "your" article, and you decide what should stay or go? The hospital image is awful. Half of it consists of overgrown grass. The hospital building is an unremarkable concrete box and moreover looks deserted and is obscured by the pine tree. See [4] on image choice and placement. This isn't the kind of image that's suitable for this article. Athenean (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It looks terrible. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece/Archive_8&oldid=1140151843"