Template talk:Greeks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Greece (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Why the link to Anti-Hellenism?[edit]

Why would anybody insist on having a red link to a deleted page here? If anybody has concrete plans for recreating it - without falling foul of the prohibition of re-creating content deleted at AfD, i.e. creating something substantially different from the old deleted article - then why should this link be included here? Fut.Perf. 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And, could you guys please stop edit-warring about it, like, for instance, now? Fut.Perf. 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Then let's delete all red links while we're at it. El Greco (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Persecution" section[edit]

I'm going to remove the "persecution" section from this template, for the following reasons:

  • It is poor taste to pick out this group of articles to push forward the image of Greeks in historical victim role. It's not done in other comparable templates.
  • It's tendentious and POV: this goes both for the decision to have a "persecution" section but not a section referring to Greeks in those episodes of their history where they were the aggressors (don't tell me such don't exist). It also goes for the selection of articles into this section (the implication that, for instance, the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is primarily about a story of persecution against Greeks may appear self-evident to some here, but certainly isn't straightforward NPOV.)
  • Most importantly, every single article linked to from this section is of alarmingly poor quality. They are all hotbeds of POV-pushing (from various sides), edit-wars, and have ended up as abominable dumps of propaganda junk and counter-propaganda junks. Unfortunately, no prospect of improvement in sight. These are not articles we ought to be proud of, and certainly not articles we should direct our readers to in a showcase of our coverage of Greek topics. Fut.Perf. 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So are we just suppose to ignore the fact that the Greeks were persecuted? What kind of representation of Greek History and the Greek people is that? Nobody has a perfectly clean history. The Jewish people have an entire section related to their persecution, and the Greeks should just forget and/or ignore theirs? Come on. Not adding that information in the template is by itself a reason for POV. If you don't like the persecution heading title stick it under the history section. Don't tell me those articles you deleted from the template are not an important part of the history of the Greeks because they are. El Greco(talk) 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What I don't accept is the inherent implication that it is a characteristic of Greek history that Greeks were consistently at the receiving end of persecution. They weren't. Not in 1821-30, not in 1919-1922, and not in 1963-1974. The comparison with the Jews is an absurd overstatement of navel-gazing ethnic masochism. Those parts of the Greek historical experience in which Greeks where victims is by no means a prominent enough part of their history that we would need to highlight it, and it alone among all other aspects of their history, in this overview. Fut.Perf. 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So the Greeks who where told to leave their homeland (Asia Minor) during the Pop transfer, who never saw their homes again, and those who died in Smyrna were what? Don't they represent who the Greeks are today? If those events didn't happen it's safe to say the history of the Greeks would be different, but saying that those events are not prominent to their history is like ignoring ones past. It happened and it deserves to be told. Go look at Athens, its population basically doubled overnight after the Pop transfer. Isn't that prominent enough for you? El Greco(talk) 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. NikoSilver 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you say, but I have nothing to add to or subtract from what I said above. Fut.Perf. 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the undue part definitely holds water in your previous comment, especially with the vast history of the Greeks. How about we change section title or put these and other significant moments down below the "history" heading? NikoSilver 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I suggested in my frst comment. Remove the Persecution section and place the articles under the History section. El Greco(talk) 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Which others and how many others? Navboxes shouldn't get overloaded with content or they get useless and cumbersome. Also, please don't forget the part of my objections relating to the quality of these articles. They are not showcase articles, by any stretch of the imagination. Fut.Perf. 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So whatever doesn't look good we just sweep under the rug? Is that how it works? El Greco(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
By "doesn't look good", do you mean that the articles don't look good, or that the history treated in them doesn't look good? If the first, yes, certainly, they don't look good at all, and we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have. If the second, forget it, I don't "debate" on this level. -- In any case, articles are made accessible by linking to them from main articles, within the text, and by having them in categories. Cramming them into "navigation boxes" is not "not sweeping them under the rug", it's pushing them to the front. We have a couple hundred articles in Category:History of Greece and its subcats; every one of them might have equal claim to be linked to. Why push this group at the expense of others? Fut.Perf. 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, by doesn't look good, I'm refering to your comment on the quality of the article. Just because it's a poor quality article doesn't mean it's any less important than any other article on the Greeks. And we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have is POV. We are not here to tell readers what to read. It's their choice, if they wish to read an article on the Pop exchange or the Smyrna fire then so be it. It is not our job as editors to hide them. They are placed in the infobox for ease and prominent relevance to the topic at hand. Even Niko agrees that A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. I'm certain if you go ask a group of Greeks you will find a bunch of them who originate from Asia Minor, are you going to tell them, that their history as Greeks (ie Smyrna, Pop Transfer) is not prominent to the rest of the Greeks? El Greco(talk) 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, but you haven't addressed anything of what I wrote. Fut.Perf. 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have, you just don't want to accept it, and have decided to ignore it. El Greco(talk) 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: slavika and arvantika[edit]

the template has slavika, aromanian, arvantika, meglenitic as "Languages and dialects" is this in reference to GREEKS (in general) , or in reference to the GREEK LANGUAGE???, because if it is in reference to the language than it is incorrect information. P m kocovski (talk)

Obviously the former. Notice the Turkic languages too. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The language of the Greeks is Greek. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And the language of Americans, Canadians and Australians is English, so there are no Americans, Canadians and Australians proper? What about the Mexicans or Argentinians who should be Spaniards? The Brazilians who should be Portuguese? There are people who self-identify as Greeks and speak other languages as well. Read the very sourced articles for each and every single one you deleted. Note, the template is titled Greeks, not Greek. NikoSilver 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remain at the exaples from the template. The Aromanians, Arvanites, Karamanlides, Bulgarians/Slavo-Macedonians are NOT ethnic Greeks, but ethnic minorities who live in many countries while Greece is one of those countries. The languages spoken by those populations (Aromanian, Albanian, Turkish, Bulgarian/Slavo-Macedonian) are spoken ONLY by those minority populations, NOT by ethnic Greeks. --Olahus (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind most articles above have at old times been a subject of extensive debate, and are sourced to exhaustion. Also, this template is NOT for "Ethnic" Greeks, as you call them, but for Greeks in general. Genetics is irrelevant from national consciousness and self-identification according to all scholars. NikoSilver 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I won't revert you, because I'm so sure of what I say that I'm certain that either you will do it yourself, or someone else will precede you. Whatever happens, I sincerely wish you the best! NikoSilver 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You just presented examples of typical results of ethnic and inguistic assimilations. If you mean that the template is not about ethnic Greeks, then it should remaned into "Ethnic groups from Greece" and exclude the ethnic Greeks who live outside Greece (the Cypriots too!) and the section "languages and dialects" should be renamed into "languages and dialects spoken in Greece" and exclude the Greek dialects spoken outside Greece. --Olahus (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you, really. But if you yourself accept that they have been forcefully assimilated, or voluntarily assimilated as I might add, then you obviously mean that they are now Greeks... So why do you insist in removing them? NikoSilver 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter weather the assimilation took place by force or voluntary. It took place. And if he considers to be an ethnic Greek, then he is not an ethnic Aromanian anymore, not an ethnic Albanian anymore, not an ethnic Turk anymore, not an ethnic Bulgarian/Slavo-Macedonian anymore. And if he looses his mother tongue for Greek, he's mother tongue is the Greek language and not the Aromanian language, not the Albanian language, not the Turkish language, not the Bulgarian language. --Olahus (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You equate change of the mother tongue with change in national consciousness, while it is definitely not a prerequisite. Also, bilingualism seems to not play in your book eh? Here we list whichever language self-identifying Greeks might use or could have used in the past (in numbers, of course), and these languages are certainly not limited to Greek dialects. After all, what is a dialect? Aside from all that, templates are supposed to guide you to relevant content, and if you read any of the articles above Greeks are mentioned all over the place. NikoSilver 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If a child of an immigrant family from China speaks mostly Greek does it mean now that the Chinese people are Greeks. Should we insert the Chinese people in this template too? And the chinese language too? Don't you understand that you are talking about assminilation? The bilingualism is a result of assimilation. What't about the Gipsies who live in Greece? Is the Romani language the language of the Greek people only because it is spoken in Greece too? Is it a dialect of the Greek language because some speakers of this language preffer to say that they are "Greeks"? Or are the Gipsies an ethnic subgroup of the Greeks? I think they are not. A person who is in process of assimilation shows a tendency to idetify with the assimilation ethnic goup and to speak the language of the assimilating group. The preocess of assimilation is completed when this person (or his successors) cease to identify with the initial ethnic group and cease to speak his mother tongue adopting exclusively the language spoken by the assimilating ethnic group.--Olahus (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The data in the sources of the articles presented above shows you that there are/were significant numbers of self-identifying "Greeks" who spoke these languages. Your analysis is irrelevant and your example with the Gypsies (or the Chinese) is exactly the reason why the Gypsies were not included, unlike all others, who apart from speaking a different language along with Greek, they also self-identify as "Greeks". If one tells an Arvanite-speaker he is not Greek he'll most probably receive a punch in the face. The same for the 180,000 Slavic speakers of Greece who are more nationalist Greeks than Greeks "proper". The same for the Vlachs, who even request the Greek government to ban (!) their own language from Greek bilingual schools, and for who many scholars have gone as far as to suggest that they tend to self-identify as Greeks even outside Greece. Self-identification is the key, and certainly not perceived heritage and genetic origin, nor perceived correctness of their partial or complete or forceful or voluntary assimilation. And self-identifying "Greeks" do speak these languages, and in large numbers too. And that according to reliable sources in the said articles, which I doubt you even glanced. Your only problem is that you want to call these speakers something else from what they provenly call themselves, which is unacceptable. NikoSilver 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You're arguments sustains exactly what I already wrote above. However, you can include those languages/peoples in the template too, but in a relevant context:
  • Greek diapora: the ethnic Greeks living outside Greece (Antiochians, Cypriots, Pontians etc)
  • Ethnic groups in Greece: the ethnic groups who live in Greece (Aromanians, Meglenoromanians, Arvanites/Albanians, Slavomacedonians/Bulgarians, Turks, etc)
  • Dialects of the Greek language: Calabrian Greek, Cappadocian Greek etc
  • Minority languages spoken in Greece: Aromanian, Meglenoromanian, Albanian, Bulgarian etc
Regards! --Olahus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
But they do not identify themselves as distinct ethnic groups. They define themselves as "Greeks" period, and they take offense if viewed as distinct, yet they do speak those languages. Read the articles please. NikoSilver 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
From the ethnographic and lingistic point of view they are different ethnicities. You cannot speak for an entire ethnic group and the ones who identifies as "Greeks" are already assimilated and therefore they're not Aromanians, Meglenoromanians, Arvanites/Albanians, Slavomacedonians/Bulgarians, Turks, Gipsies, Jews etc anymore. They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors. --Olahus (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! "They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors" as you say above, plus they do speak those languages on the side, and in great numbers too. I don't understand why we disagree when in fact we agree!?! NikoSilver 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus here it Olahus's views are respected and the product of his own research and opinions, but they are not applicable to this article. Please can we get back to the status quo ante. Thanks. Politis (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Olahus, your arguments are not only specious, they're also extremely offensive to the hundreds of thousands of Greeks who are proud of their distinctive cultural and linguistic heritage. To say that they are not Arvanites or Vlachs "any more" is not only wrong, it is the height of arrogance. Who are you to tell them what they are and what they are not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be wise to avoid jumping into "ancestry conclussions", by taking as a fact the language alone. "They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors": simply ignorant view, which equalizes language=ethnic origin. Under such pretexts, we could insert in a large number of articles views like: "tens of millions of people in Italy are simply Italians with Greek ancestors", the same for Turkey, Lebanon, and don't even get me started by elevating popular legends still alive among the Pakistani and Afghan populations, into scientific views... Instead of saying that the Aromanians/Arvanites/Karamanlides have no Greek ancestors (based on theis linguistic heritage), better question how many non-Greeks have indeed Greek ancestors... This map is just a hind (it is also somewhere in Wikipedia, but I cannot find it at the moment).
Regardless of all that, and back to the issue, since these languages and dialects are spoken by ethnic Greeks (no matter if they have non-Greeks ancestors, if they were hellenized or rehellenized, or were Greek-speaking turn to e.g. Slavic-speaking and then back to Greek- again, or of Greek ancestry that adopted a non-Greek language), they should remain in the template. And, by the way, the example of the Chinese above is irrelevant... This template includes languages and dialects spoken almost entirely by modern ethnic Greeks (the Aromanians in FYROM and Albania have traditionally self-identified as Greeks, the Karamanlides are Greek Orthodox Christians, with a history linked to Cappadocia at a time when becoming a Christian was punishable by death (Sharia law, active in the Ottoman Empire)-so, no chance they are of Turkish ancestry, the term "Arvanite" appears in history earlier than the term "Albanian"-so, it would make more sense to turn the ancestral lines vive versa... In any case, these languages and dialects are part of the Greeks and belong in this template (of course, the inclussionist policies of Wikipedia allow them to be added elsewhere too, and for that I can do nothing, even if I wanted to). Hectorian (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Allow me to 'evaluate' Olahus (with his kind permission) by quoting his first comment on this page. He wrote:"The language of the Greeks is Greek. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)". Everything else our dear friend wrote reads like catching up. Thanks. Politis (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Politis, if you say that there is a concensus, show me please a link to it. However, read please this text:

Significant numbers of Greek citizens identify themselves as Turks, Pomaks, Vlachs, Roma, Arvanites (Orthodox Christians who speak a dialect of Albanian), or "Macedonians" or "Slavomacedonians." Most are integrated fully into society. The Government formally recognizes only the "Muslim minority" specified in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne (see Section 2.c.), although it stated publicly in 1999 that members of that minority could identify themselves individually as belonging to different ethnic groups. Most of the Muslim minority (officially estimated to number 98,000) are ethnically Turkish or Turcophone and live in Thrace. The Muslim minority also includes Pomaks and Roma. Many Greek Muslims, including Pomaks, identify themselves as Turks and say that the Muslim minority as a whole has a Turkish cultural consciousness. [ See the source ]. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The case of Greece's Muslim minority has been analysed in depth many times. Frankly, I cannot see any relevance with the issue discussed here... Pomak language and Turkish are not in the template. I thought that the issue of your concern was the Aromanians, the Arvanites and the Karamanlides... But even if you want to put other groups on the table, I shall remind you that the origins of the Muslim minority ("ancestry", as you mentioned somewhere above) is rather obscure, and may be different than the origin of their language: 1. for the Turks, they are all Turks, even if they do not have Turkic characteristics or speak Turkish as a mother tangue, 2. for the Bulgarians, they are Slavs who were islamized, 3. for some Greek cyrcles, they are native Greek Orthodox Byzantines, who were linguistically slavicized and religiously islamized, 4. for some Westerners (in the scope and plan of further Balkanization, they are descendants of the ancient Thracians...
Take your pick, but be sure you can't have everyone agree with it... Hectorian (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I cite from above: "the Aromanians in FYROM and Albania have traditionally self-identified as Greeks". I suggest you to read Thede Kahl's work Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. You will see clearly that the absolute majority of the Aromanians from FYROM and Albania have an own national identity. Most of them regard themselves neither as Greeks, nor as Romanians. They are Aromanians and this is enough. --Olahus (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My knowldge of German is practically non-existent... so, I cannot read your source, even if I wanted to... The self-identifications of the Aromanians of FYROM and Albania as Greeks is well attested in English. I challenge you to have a look at it (since you are obviously good in English). Hectorian (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
And I suggest you read Victor Roudometof's Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question, according to which "historically the majority of Vlachs in the southern Balkans have identified themselves as Greeks". The "absolute majority" of Aromanians in Greece's neighbouring countries may indeed regard themselves as a distinct ethnic group today, but not historically. One cannot disregard the fact that they were deliberately encouraged to abandon their traditional Greek (i.e. Roman) identity. In any case, this template pertains to those Aromanians who do identify as Greeks, and who – to use your words – constitute the absolute majority of the world's Aromanians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If they would have historically a Greek identity, why do they have the endonym "Armanji", "Armin" and "Rramanji" ? They could define themselves in their language simply as "Gretslji" (the desigantion in Aromanian for the Greeks). And I don't see why the Aromanians of Macedonia and Albania should't have today an own identity. Who should be interested to encourage them deliberately to abandon their "traditional" Greek identity in tha favor of an own identity. The Romanian state would encourage to regard themselves as Romanians, not as an own ethnic group. And Albania/Jugoslavia didn't care about their Aromanians - they encouraged them maybe to regard themselves as "Albanians" or "Jugoslavs/"Macedonians"", but not to have their own identity. However, the talk about their historical identity is about the past. Only the majority of those who live in Greece have a Greek identity, but not those living outside this country. --Olahus (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
"However, the talk about their historical identity is about the past. Only the majority of those who live in Greece have a Greek identity, but not those living outside this country"
Correct to a degree, so why are you opposed to including them as a Greek sub-group when we are talking about Greece? Readers aren't idiots; they can tell the difference between the general and the specific (one hopes). 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The template says that the Aromanians (generally), not the Aromanians from Greece consider to be Greeks. I think that an article Vlachs of Greece should be created to handle about the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians from Greece. --Olahus (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
"why do they have the endonym "Armanji", "Armin" and "Rramanji" ?": it is like asking why the Greeks had (and still have) the endonym Romioi... Cause of history... check the respective articles for info and sources! I am an Aromanian myself, and trust me that many, too many, in the Blakans or not, would encourage the Aromanians to have an ethnic identity other than Greek... Issues having to do with the Cold war, the traditional 20th century animosity among Greece and e.g. Bulgaria, the titoist creation of the "Macedonian" nation and numerous other things in the past put the Vlachoi (Aromanians) into awkward possitions to abandon their Greek identity... Whatever your views may be, the fact remains that the main inspiration of the Greek War of Independence, Rigas Fereos, the first constitutional PM of Greece, Ioannis Kolettis, the current President of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, the most well known Greek folk musician, Vassilis Tsitsanis, as well as the vast majority of modern Aromanians self-identify as Greeks! So, let aside your personal views, for the template cannot be changed... Hectorian (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no connection between the term "Romioi" and the Aromanians. The Aromians, as well as some other Romace peoples too (Romanians, Reto-Romanians), use an edonym that derived from the term "Romanus". The Greeks call the Aromanians "Βλάχοι", a term borrowed from the Slavic "Vlasi". Indeed, they are parts of Aromanians that have a Greek identity, but this issue is not older than the 18th century, when assimilation efforts were encouraged by the Greek missionary Cosmas of Aetolia (1714-1779) who taught that Aromanians should speak Greek because as he said "it's the language of our Church" and established over 100 Greek schools in northern and western Greece. (see Thede Kahl, Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. Münster, 1999). They are proeminent Aromanians in other European countries too, not just in Greece, see List of Aromanians.--Olahus (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that the Greek Aromanians are a subgroup of the Greeks. And claiming that there is "no connection" between the Romioi and the Aromanians is disgenuous; the latter were always part of the former. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
How about providing a source for your claim that the Greek Aromanians are Greeks? And how do you define the term "Greeks"? By ethnicity? By citizenship? However, there is no connection between the "Romioi and the Aromanians. See [[Names

of the Aromanians]]. --Olahus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Their self-identification as ethnic Greeks is widely reported and more than adequately sourced. I didn't say that the name of the Aromanians derives from Romioi, despite the obvious etymological link; the Aromanians themselves were Romioi, which is why the Turks classified them as part of the millet-i Rûm·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
According to this claim, the Romanians are Romioi too. --Olahus (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Roma[edit]

The Roma from Greece are in the same characteristics like other ethnic minorities in Greece (Aromanians, Albanians, Slavs): they have a Greek identity:

  • Read here: Many of the assimilated Roma, who have integrated into Greek society, consider themselves primarily Greek, and Roma only in the second place, and are therefore called "Greek Roma," distinguishing them from the marginalized "Roma of Greece."
  • Read here: Roma in Greece, as it is all over the world, have their internal, in lesser of bigger extent endogamy subdivisions, with the corresponding ethno cultural and dialectal characteristics. Such Roma groups in Greece are Gifti (Yifti), who are mainly Greek speaking; part of them is with preferred Greek identity [...]
  • Read here: Roma in Greece are not an homogeneous group either, and some of the Balkan families are also found in this country. There are three main communities: the Yifti, who speak Greek and many of them have Greek identity, the Türk-Yifti, who speak Turkish and often prefer a Turkish identity, and the various Romany speaking tribes, with Romany identity although considering themselves part of the Hellenic civilization and culture.
    Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Roma of Greece do not have the same characteristics as other groups in Greece. And, by the way, the Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones are not considered ethnic minorities, neither by themselves nor by the rest of the Greeks (an ethnic distinction is made in other, non-Greek minds). Firstly, the Roma acknoewledge their non-Greek origins. On the contrary, the Aromanians, etc believe they have Greek ancestry. Secondly, the Roma are viewd as non-Greeks by the Greeks. In the sense that they are Greek citizens with full rights, yet citizenship does not mean ethnos, at least not in Greece... On the contrary, Aromanians, Arvanites, etc, are considered as such ethnic Greek subgroups as Cretans, Tsakonians, Sarakatsans, Cypriots, etc. Thirdly, historically speaking, the Roma were not viewed as ethnic Greeks, neither by themselves, nor the Greeks, nor the foreigners. The Souliotes were considered Greeks by their contemporary Westerners. The Aromanians in 18th-19th century Vienna, were considered Greeks, by the Austro-Hungarian authorities (Tositsas) or in Egypt (e.g. George Averoff. Lastly, as an example, the current President of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, is Aromanian. According to the Greek constitution, the president of the country must be ethnic Greek, Greek Orthodox. If the Aromanians did not consider themselves ethnic Greeks and/or were not considered as such by the rest of the Greeks, it would have become a major issue here. Apropos, the last attempt to draw an ethnic distinction concerning the Aromanians, blatantly failed... This might say something to anyone imagining similar plans and schemes... Hectorian (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Very weak arguments, Hectorian. They are Aromanians who regard themselves as an own ethnic group as well as Slaves, Roma, Arvanites etc do. And on the other side they are Aromanians who regard themselves as Greeks, same in the case of the Slaves, Roma, Arvanites etc. If you insist to add all these groups, then you must accept the Roma too. I hope you're not an antiziganist.
PS: Concerning the origins of the Aromanians there enough to read here. Don't forget that on this issue, there are different vievs between the Aromanians and between the scientists too. And we are talking here about the Roma, not the Aromanians. --Olahus (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we are talking about the Roma here, with the Aromanians in the back of our heads, isn't it true Olahus? Of course I am not an antiziganist, nor do I have anything against the Roma people. Yet, the real issue here are all the minorities of Greece, with your special interest about the Aromanians. I, myself, am an Aromanian, and I am sure that I do not think differently than the rest Aromanians of Greece. If you wanna have it your way in the template, all I can say is mare lucru... Practically, you won't achive anything nor will you contribute significantly in any truth for the matter. Hectorian (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hectorian, you're obvoiusly an antiziganist and your last revert is called in Wikipedia a disruptive edit. I gave you as a more detailed example the situation of the Aromanians because I have more knowledges about the Aromanians then about the Arvanites, Slavophones etc. from a simple reson: my wife is Aromanian. However, the fact that my wife is Aromanian or that you are an Aromanian is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. You must give sources for your claim. You can't fool me, Hectorian. They are also Aromanians in Greece who think different then you want to put it across. Of course, it is also true for Arvanites and Slavophones. From the same reason you insist to include those peoples, you must accept the Roma too (moreover because they are sources, as you saw above, that clearly puts the Roma in the same category). Or, do you feel ashamed about the Roma? --Olahus (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny comment, with a much advertised example of a single person. You wanna have it your way? Go ahead... Afterall, it has been evident that cause of these policies of Wikipedia, people tend not to take it seriously anymore... That's why my edits are rather scarce for a long time. Thus, Wikipedia now has become the playground of people like yourself... Enjoy! Hectorian (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So, you still don't have any logical argument, right?--Olahus (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Roma in Greece do not identify as and are not considered to be ethnic Greeks (Έλληνες το γένος). That is the difference. I propose removing the Romaniotes on similar grounds, though I admit to lacking expert knowledge on their precise ethnic self-identification. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not true. I prooved the contrary with the sources at the beginning of the discussion. --Olahus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
But to what extent do those who have been assimilated retain an identity qua Roma? The Arvanites and Vlachs retain a strong identity as Arvanites and Vlachs and Greeks. Abandoning their culture is not a requirement of being or feeling Greek, as it seems to be for the Roma. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no difference between the Greek identity of the Aromanians/Arvanites/Slaves and the Greek identity of the Roma. If you think they are, show me a source rather than an original research.--Olahus (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

republic of macedonia[edit]

just a question why does this article still have the acronym FYROM as opposed to Republic of Macedonia? most other sources on wikipedia link to ROM not to FYROMP m kocovski (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed it.Xenovatis (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that in Greece related articles we didn't have to use the name "Republic of Macedonia". I'm not sure though.. - Sthenel (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not, it clearly distinguishes from the Greek region of Macedonia. Plus most other templates have moved onto Republic of Macedonia. P m kocovski (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually on WP:MOMAC "The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated,[2] or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia." seeing as it is a template the Xenovatis version should be reinstated.P m kocovski (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arvanites are not ethnic Greeks[edit]

It is extremely odd to place the Arvanites at the category of ethnic Greek people since the Arvanites have a language and an ethnic background different from the Greeks. No serious research can confirm the statement of this template. This type of exaggerations is clearly Greek propaganda that should be battled firmly by serious Wikipedia contributors. Let me inform that the article Arvanites is currently hijacked by Greek nationalist users. --Albanau (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

albania[edit]

ok, just realized that contrary to my edit-comment there is actually a grouping for norther eprirotes. however i still think somehow albania (and possibly turkey) should feature up there with greece and cyprus. in fact, either those three or four countries; or just greece alone. am not sure why those two countries only are chosen?Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical subgroups...why?[edit]

Does this template need dozens of local subgroups which actually lead to articles about regions? This is a template about the Greeks and their subgroups, if a distinct subgroup within the Greek nation exists. Roumeliotes, Thracians, some selected (how?) islanders etc with no respective articles and any distinct identity, are just separated by region making it look like a geographical template. I think this is totally needless. 94.65.54.117 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)