Talk:Greeks

Diasporas Greek Numbers

Whoever put approximately 16 million Greek worldwide should re do the head count.Excluding Greece and Cyprus 10.8 million together according to the 2001 Census I can only count another 3m Greeks outside of Greece and Cyprus.You have to include the Census where there are Census figures and if there are no Census figures use estimates.Even doing this puts the real numbers at about 14 million Greeks worldwide and not 16m. Siras 4/12/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the UK has 400,000 Greeks then how many Chinese it has!? 4,000,000?! All figures are inflated specially for the UK and Albania. Today, you can't find more than 35,000 Greeks in Albania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.231.28 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New article Greek identity

It would be great if when it comes to the identity of the modern Greeks the insight offered by the poem of Rhigas Ferraios, one the 2-3 "fathers" of the modern Greek nation, was also considered. I made a post regarding that poem (named "Thourios") here: Rigas_Feraios#Ideas_and_legacy Link: http://fotios.org/node/2180--Lonwolve (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of creating a new article Greek identity where those parts of the article in the Modern and Ancient and Genetis' sections that have been deemed extrenneous can go and free up space in the main article. Opinions?--Xenovatis (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a tough one to make (that is, really cover the whole subject in only one article), methinks. But, I'm really not sure if those specific ("race", genes and whatnot) passages would have anything to do with it, anyhow (with the exception of the reaction to Fallm. perhaps). 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It would later split itself in a new greek genetics article etc. Basically I just want a place to dump the stuf you maked as superflous.--Xenovatis (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this. Seems to me like a battleground and troll-hangout in the making. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

About the term Proto-Greek and its usage

On the origins section it says "The Proto-Greeks probably arrived at the area now referred to as Greece". The usage of Proto-Greek for the invading people that entered the Helladic area is wrong. There were no Proto-Greeks invading the Helladic area but a proto-indoeuropean people, that were ofsprings of the Yamna cultures who entered the Balkans. Those invaders stayed in the northern Greek borders and formed the lake cultures (e.g Maliq II) that probably formed a basis for a Greco-Phrygian group of people. Still those people where not Proto-Greeks. When those PIE people entered finally the Helladic area they formed together with native pre-Greek populations what we call "Proto-Greeks". Both the formation of the Greek language and identity formed within the Helladic area. Since none of those existed outside it, the term proto-greek is inaccurate, even though it has been used extensively in the past.

Fkitselis —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Greeks constitute an ethnic group of great longevity

This should be included in the main article somehow.

Susan Buck Sutton Proffesor of anthropology at Indiana University

Greeks constitute an ethnic group of great longevity, tracing their origins to the first appearance of complex society in southeastern Europe. A common sense of Culture, language, and religion signified by the term "Greek" (Hellene) developed in antiquity and has endured, with changes, to the present. Greek identity today emphasizes early Greek civilization, the Christian traditions of the Byzantine Empire, and the concerns of the modern Greek nation established in 1831. Throughout Greek history, members of other groups were periodically assimilated as Greeks, while Greeks themselves migrated in a worldwide diaspora. The ethnic Greeks now residing outside the Hellenic republic equal those within. This article, however, is restricted to the latter. Anothroskon (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur on it's inclusion. As long as the data is backed by 'facts' and not 'opinion,' why not. Would make an enlightening addition to our understanding of what constitutes a "Greek." --Nikoz78 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Greeks in Turkey

5000? There's 1.5 million not 5000. Surely just because a Greeks is muslim doesn't make him or her any less Greek. It should be changed.--English Bobby (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bobby if you can bring sources to that effect I would be happy to amend the number, Muslims or not.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It all comes down to definitions, doesn't it? In the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, people were defined as Greek if they were Greek Orthodox, and defined as Turkish if they were Muslim. There are of course other possible definitions. Most of the Muslims in Crete, for example (see Turco-Cretans) were Greek-speaking and largely descended from converts, but they either left voluntarily or were deported to Turkey. And no doubt much of the current population of Anatolia has ancestors who were Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. But under modern ethnic definitions, none of these people are "Greeks"; similarly, the descendants of Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians in Anatolia (Karamanlides) who live in Greece are not considered "Turks". --macrakis (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Its alls on this article, Greek Muslims sources included. Described as ethnic Greek Muslims. I think they should count. These people are seen as a distinct group from the Turks (whom i agree are mostly of Greek speaking decent) and many of them still speak Greek. It'd look a little less depressing for the Greeks in Turkey part as well :)--English Bobby (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bobby, it only looks depressing because it is.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, i mean i'm no fan of Turkey but i do feel they fallen victim to a form of "black legend" by that everyone assumes that the indigenous populations (not including the Turks real ancestors) have been wiped out and replaced. This isn't entirely true. The Greek muslims and Kurds among others are an example of that. The real expulsions would be better defined by religion not race. Anyway i still think they should be added as the Greek muslims are Greeks by ethnicity and somewhat culturally too, and this article is about ethnic Greeks not orthodox Christians.--English Bobby (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well what took place was the turkification of the native populations of Asia Minor so indeed most were converted religiously and linguistically rather than murdered to the degree that a Central Asian component is only a minority influence on modern Turks' genetic makeup. The mass murders were only institutionalised with the rise of the nationalist Young Turks who were substantially less tolerant than the Sultans (see Greek genocide). If there are sources claiming that these Greek-speaking Muslims identify themselves as Greeks (either Hellenes or Romaioi) then I would be happy to add it to the article, but I doubt that they do.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed! To include a group of people in the Greek diaspora we have to take into account not only their Greek ancestry but their self-identification as well. Of course there are people of Greek ancestry in Turkey, on the western coastline, in Constantinople and Pontus, but they have been absorbed into the turkish culture and society and don't self-identify as Greeks anymore. Such groups of people, that have been living somewhere for centuries and have intermingled with the local population so as not to include them in any diaspora, exist in every modern state. - Sthenel (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but we're not talking about Greeks long absorbed by the locals (that would be most Turks) i'm talking about Greeks speaking ethnic Greek muslims living in Turkey. They are Greeks i can't see whats wrong with that. Thats how all the other ethnic groups are done. Its defined by their race not what they want to be, in this case these people are seen as distinct from your average Turk. The Griko people have lived in Italy for thousands of years, does that mean they should not count? This article is about Greeks not just the Christian ones. Its in the Greek Muslims article.--English Bobby (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some way of mentioning ethnic Greek Muslims living in Turkey and the process of the Turkification should be included in the article, at the same time making it clear that these people are not generally considered "Greek" according to the modern definition of an ethnic group. Athenean (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but we must remember that the Greek Muslims are from Greece not Turkey they were exchanged for Greek Christians in 1923. Their not the same as the "ethnic Turks" because their not from Asia minor. Also 1.5 million is the number that identify as Greek Muslims whereas considering demographic changes its probably much higher in reality. But as Anothroskon pointed out only the identifying ones would count.--English Bobby (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Griko people have maintained their Greek identity so far and if we had any reliable source about Muslims in Turkey that can be described as ethnic Greeks respectively, then we could add them in the Greek diaspora. Once upon a time I watched a documentary about Muslim Pontic Greeks in Turkey; they said that they were aware of their Greek origin but they didn't feel anything else but Turks. These people could not be included in the Greek diaspora of Turkey. - Sthenel (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't have a separate article if they were just Turks, they are Greek speaking Muslims and thus are ethnic Greeks. This is about a race not just a nationality. Technically the Greek Cypriots are not Greek by nationality (yet) but are included. They should at least be mentioned as user Athenean say's.--English Bobby (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, i know this isn't on the topic at hand but why aren't their any Byzantine's in the famous Greeks photo collection. Surely a Comnenus or Paleologus could be there to fill the great gap between ancient and modern Greeks.--English Bobby (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

With you on that one.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to appear rude but can you all please stop calling the Greeks living in Turkey as part of the Greek diaspora! They are not a diaspora, they are natives of Anatolia.GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, i agree but we have to be realistic. Technically Cyprus shouldn't be included as "diaspora" though because its an ethnic Greek island. Greece is the main home of Greeks.

Also i've added a foot note about the Greek Muslims. I've not added their numbers to the population statistics but they deserve to be at least mentioned.--English Bobby (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well do you actually have any reliable sources which states that there is 1.5million in Turkey? If not then this really should not be in the article.GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Its an entire article called Greek Muslims the sources are on there. I've not added them to the population numbers just added a note. They deserve to be mentioned.--English Bobby (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of famous Greeks

I was wondering if it would be a good idea if the were a Byzantine in the famous Greeks section. There is a big gap between the Ancient period and the renaissance.--English Bobby (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We could have added a lot more people in the infobox. Other articles have tens of persons in there (some of them not as famous as they are supposed to be). Apart from these 5 already included, we could add famous Greek heroes, scientists, artists, athletes etc. - Sthenel (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mixed topic

I know that I'm not bringing up something that is entirely new but ...

This article is mixing a lot of loosely related topics. Essentially the topic here is the set up people who spoke some dialect of Greek or were closely related to those who spoke Greek. However, it does not clearly cover even that topic. The reality, of course, is that the Greek langauge was a lingua franca in much of Europe, Asia, and Africa for many centuries and the identities of the various peoples and cultures that have used the language are extremely varied. Moreover the Balkans have seen a lot of cultures move in and out and the modern nation of Greece was in reality formed from many people whose ancestors had not even resided there. The article implies that the people of modern Greece are substantially more tied ethnically to the ancient Greeks or Eastern Romans than other cultures which is certainly not true at all. My suggestion would be to limit this article to the modern ethnic group related to the modern Greek nation and the Ottoman Rum millet. If it is necessary to have an article that talks in detail about older "Greek" ethnic groups those should be separate articles. But trying to mix those in here is really nationalistic propaganda (I would make the same argument regarding the modern Egyptian ethnic group vs. the ancient Egyptians).

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier for someone to treat your suggestion seriously if it wasn't for that last sentence. It reminds me of the extreme modernist/revisionist approach that is professed by a number of intellectuals inside Greece, they find it very convenient to put anyone attempting to defend a notion of continuity other than language in the same lot with ignorant ultra-nationalists. Let me explain what i understand from it: despite of all the academic works being accumulated in the creation of this article you're saying that it is a product of source manipulation and synthesis based on nationalist motives, and essentially most (if not all) of the editors that have made significant contributions here are either Greek nationalists or "victims" of this "propaganda" (?).--GroGaBa (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao, this article covers the Greek nation from the time of its ethnogenesis up to now. This is what any article about a people does. From the very early times of the emergence of the Proto-Greeks to nowadays there is a continuity of a people called Greeks, no matter the changes that every nation undergoes throughout its history. Let the sources elaborate on the relationship between ancient, medieval and modern Greeks. Such speculations about racial continuity and arbitrary conclusions about what is not true at all and how loosely related the topics are, clearly serve propaganda purposes. The Egyptians fall in the same category, such as many other nations that show a "national continuity", without taking into consideration any changes in their language, religion etc, or any other groups that they absorbed some time in their history. All these don't mean that any cultural or racial relationship of a nation to their ancient ancestors has dried up. However, this is not the key for these articles. - Sthenel (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the article's intent. But the notion of a "continuity" in this ethnic group as distinct from other ethnic groups over this entire period is a false notion (one which scholars have largely discredited). Frankly it is rarely the case that an ethnic group can be considered to be genuinely distinct for a period covering thousands of years. The fact that the modern Greeks speak a language that is arr land was part of guably more tied to ancient Greek than any other language does not, in and of itself, mean that the modern nation has more ethnic or genetic relationship to the ancient group than others around it. This is rather like the modern English arguing that, because their land was part of the ancient Roman Empire, their culture is primarily based on Roman culture and has nothing to do with Saxon or Scandinavian culture. Obviously this is not true. Or the English could argue that because their language is based on Saxon that their culture and ethnicity has nothing to do with the French, something that is also not true (thanks to the Norman conquest and other factors).

The modern Greek nation is derived from a lot of ancient peoples. Moreover the modern Turks, Macedonians, and many other peoples are ethnically, genetically, and culturally descended in part from the ancient Greeks, probably as much so as the modern Greek nation. Trying to draw too close an association between the language a people happen to speak and their ethnicity is misleading. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This general claims discussion can't go very far. I didn't mean to imply anything about this article's intent with my second sentence above, i made an analogy between your "nationalist propaganda" assertion and a somewhat relevant, and equally leveling, perspective, my actual position on this is that while the elements of continuity through the various phases of Greek history are open to academic debate, the continuity itself isn't. This might save you some time deploying another revision of the same unfocused polemic in your third post: i believe the most elementary platform this content can legitimately be seen as covering a single topic is the common definition of Greek<=>native Greek-speaker, whatever each indivisual scholar/writer has or hasn't enriched it with, it's an undisputable point of reference in western literature, and whatever argument we may use to attack it as a definition, we can't change the plain fact of its widespread use. I was implying it with my last sentence above, Sthenel was more direct (in order for this discussion to be constructive enough and worth spending time on): please check the sources, and point to specific examples where they have been misused to back the "single topic" treatment.--GroGaBa (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you (Mcorazao) have no idea about what nation means. A nation, throughout the centuries, can maintain its existence as a distinct entity. If the Turks have absorbed Greek populations and have been affected to some extent by the Greek culture, it has nothing to do with the Greek nation. The example with the English people and the Roman Empire is totally irrelevant. The English nation came to birth from the Anglo-Saxons and whether they were later affected genetically or culturally by Scandinavians, Romans, French or anyone else, the English nation is a unique national entity until our days. English people affected other modern nations too genetically or culturally; does it mean that these nations, which descend in part from English people, abolish the existence of the English nation in the sense that English people should not use the name English, because it implies more relationship with the Anglo-Saxons than the other peoples have? The Greeks aren't the remnants of the Byzantine Empire who happen to speak Greek nowadays. Of course modern Greeks have closer genetic and cultural relationship to ancient Greeks than the Turks, the Slav-Macedonians, the Albanians etc. Your ideas are plain speculations which have no base on history, genetics, social anthropology and lack in knowledge of primary terms of these fields. Indeed, this discussion can't go very far because there are (from your side) only overgeneralizations and assumptions that lead you to completely arbitrary conclusions. - Sthenel (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If we look at the case of the English we can see at least some degree of a coherent separation between the people who saw themselves as English from the populations near them (mind you, even in the case of the English one could argue that the Norman invasion created a discontinuity but let's say for the sake of argument that is not the case). Though English culture has changed drastically through the centuries at least one can say that there was some clear continuity that was distinct from any continuity from other cultures (emphasis on distinct).

The same can be said of the Greeks since the Greek Revolution. Additionally one can argue for some distinct continuity in the "Greek nation" during the Ottoman period although there is some fuzziness there (i.e. the Ottoman "Greeks" were often not of any real "Greek" descent but simply descendants of Roman Christians). One can even argue some distinct continuity with the last stages of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. But going back before that things start to become so fuzzy as to be misleading. That is, to argue that the "Greeks" of the Ottoman period are more culturally descended from the likes of Ptolemy and Diophantus than the "Arabs" and "Turks" is a complete fallacy. The reality, of course, is that many of the "Greeks" gradually adopted Arabic and Turkish as their language but the culture of the regions they inhabited was an amalgam of the "Greek" culture and other cultures just as the "Greek" culture was. The fact that any particular group continued speaking "Greek" does not, by itself, make them more connected to the "Greek" nation of the past. Moreover, bear in mind that there was a period of centuries where almost nobody called themselves "Greek". People were Roman or Christian and might speak "Greek", or might not, but the concept of the "Greek nation" was absorbed by the concept of the "Roman nation" (which in turn was partially absorbed by the "Muslim nation", then the "Turkish nation", etc.). The modern concept of the "Greek nation" was invented by the Greek revolution as a nationalistic identity for the Ottoman "Roman nation" (i.e. the Christian nation). In truth, some of the revolutionaries actually considered calling the new nation the Roman Empire but it was quickly decided that this would offend the Western Europeans who they were looking to help them. "Greece" was an easier sell to the Westerners. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, you could write a book on your theories, but not an article in an encyclopedia because this is your personal point of view. You have made a whole plot to base your theory on. We've already answered to you. - Sthenel (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of me going to all the trouble to collect a large number of sources if no-one is going to read them? In brief Mxorazaor you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks/Sources_Greeks --Anothroskon (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao is just another typical anti-Hellenic racist. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. I think a lot of this goes back to Nordic race theories of the last 150 years (theories that have been utterly debunked by science), theories that seem to have crept into Hollywood portrayals of Ancient Greeks: pale white skin, blond hair and blue eyes (although '300' and 'Clash of the Titans' seem to be eradicating that mid-20th-century-era trend). Socrates wrote that Greeks (Hellenes) are the "perfect race.. neither very pale like the 'northerners,' nor very dark like the [African] 'southerners,' but possessing an ideal tone of olive skin." Some of the Ancient Greeks thought pale skin was a sign of stupidity, and marked you as a barbarian. The truth is that the Ancient Greeks were made up of numerous (dozens and dozens) of Hellenic tribes and what made you a Greek was your language and culture, etc. Experts have compared the unbroken language and successive culture of the Greek people to Chinese alone. To come in here and try to say that the "Modern Greeks" (derogatory in his manner of it) is comparable to that of the modern Egyptians is beyond ignorant. The Egyptian people suffered the massive (and I mean MASSIVE) Arab invasions that utterly wiped them out. They do not today speak Egyptian they speak 'Egyptian Arabic,' which has little to do with Coptic language. Your entire argument is weak and marks you as a racist. I don't see you in the German People discussion telling them just because they speak German does not make them German, and that because the Danes and others invaded their lands they are non-persons in the fantasy realm of your bigoted brain. The world according to you and your infinite wisdom. The scholars of the world are wrong and you are right. Slavic people and Turks are the real Greeks. Be sure to write the CIA and tell them to remove the data from their Fact database that genetically and scientifically concludes that Greeks and Southern Italians are most similar in their DNA makeup. Explain that one to me. In the end, we don't care what you think. Xeno. --Nikoz78 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9lions, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

CIA estimates the Greeks in Albania at 3%

The CIA estimates the Greeks in Albania at 3% of the country's total population -- 3,659,616 (July 2010 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html

PLEASE submit these information!

9lions (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The CIA is factbook is not the most reliable of sources, so I have replaced it with this [1] which is preferrable. Ian Jeffries is a reliable source, and his book moreover is a secondary source, which the CIA factbook is not. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean's source[[2]] says that 1.7% are Greeks. 200,000 Greeks in Albania make 1.7% of the total population, so it gives 11,764,705 Albanian citizens.[3] There must be something wrong with these sources who add up to 200000 Greeks in Albania.Beserks (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

It would be usefull if someone could give a good etymology of the name Hellenes and how it is connected with the name Greeks given by the Romans.188.4.39.201 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Greeks in Lebanon and Syria

This should be added to the infobox. 7000 Greeks in Lebanon and 3000 Greeks in Syria: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ηaving read up on them they seem to identify as Greeks even though they are Muslim now so it could definately be added. Please go ahead. I had already mentioned them in the religion section I think.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Borza on Greeks

Frances B. Titchener, Richard F. Moorton (ed.) The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520210298, 9780520210295, p.259 Chapter: Macedonia Redux by Eugene N. Borza

This is a tale of two Balkan nation-states. One has a long, distinguished history based in part upon the fame of an ancient society and the heritage of Byzantine Christianity. Modern Greeks point with pride to the power and glory of their past. But there may be something else at work in the Greek mentality. Until the early nineteenth century, Greeks of the Diaspora had been prominent throughout Europe in diplomacy, commerce, and cultural affairs. The courts and counting houses employed or were managed by Greeks whose skills in these matters were legendary in Europe for centuries, and who had a telling influence on European life out of proportion to their small numbers. With the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence and the consequent establishment of the modern Hellenic state in the 1820s and 1830os, many of these talented Greeks joined the effort to build the new nation. But in so doing, Greek influence abroad waned.26 In time, the Greeks, who had once been prominent in antiquity, in Byzantine times, and in modern Europe found that they were now relegated to obscurity, dependent upon major European states to provide financial resources and military security against the Turks, struggling to maintain a cohesive government in a remote tip of the Balkans, and engaged in an internal conflict between an imported authoritarian monarchy and the liberal notion that the inventors of democracy should have progressive constitutional government. Thus emerged one of the enduring characteristics of modern Greek life: a desperate attempt to regain a past glory, rooted in the cultural accomplishments of antiquity and the religious and political might of Byzantium. An identification with the ancient Macedonians is part of that attempt.

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. One need understand only a single geopolitical fact: As one measures conflicting Serb and Bulgarian claims over the past nine centuries, they intersect in Macedonia. Macedonia is where the historical Serb thrust to the south and the historical Bulgarian thrust to the west meet. This is not to say that present Serb and Bulgarian ambitions will follow their historical antecedents. But this is the Balkans, where the past has precedence over the present and the future.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.

--Anothroskon (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable POV source

Miranda Vickers is an unreliable POV source. She cannot possibly be used for the number of Greeks in Albania. Athenean (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

She safely may qualify as a RS and is from 2010. What doesn't is the CIA factbook data, which is outdated (1992) and relies on the American Hellenic Institute, and other Greek nationalistic groups. See Talk:Albanians#Infobox_Numbers and please undo yourself. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Vickers is highly partisan, very pro-Albanian, she may not be used for this. By the way, I am not using the CIA factbook (about which you are wrong anyway), but this [5]. Athenean (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I see from this edit that you are using the CIA source. And if you need to use the other source. Greeks are still at 1.7% which would bring make the number of Greeks even smaller. And you still need to clarify why Vickers would be pro-Albanian and why she is not RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's from 2001 and Vickers is from 2010(she's RS, unless you can bring some sources that prove she isn't RS) and newer sources are preferable. Btw this 2003 source used on the article Albanians [6] says about Greek researchers estimating the minority numbers at 60,000, so the 200,000 figure from 2001 is outdated.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when vickers is from, she is partisan and non-neutral. Her works don't include a bibliography, so she also fails RS rather painfully. The phrase "most western estimates" is ideal, and 2001 is recent enough. Besides, the figure here is for ALL Greeks from Albania, whether they still live in Albania or have moved to Greece (no one knows). 200,000 for the total is eminently reasonable. Athenean (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 sources from 2003 and 2010 that put the number to less than 70,000 and you insist on labeling them as pov(without providing sources when asked to) and there is a source from 2001 that has a single sentence among many others and you're trying to monopolize the sources with that single sentence.

Athenean, Vicker's work DOES include a bibliography in page 15. Please check better next time. I threw an RfC there. It doesn't seem like we will be able to agree on sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources about the Greek minority in Albania. Why do we have to use Vickers? Why ignore all the others? The answer is simple: Because Vickers, being highly partisan, gives the lowest of the lowball estimates, that's why. There are plenty of good sources, we do not need to use a partisan source. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Miranda Vickers

Can Miranda Vickers and her study on the Greek minority of Albania be considered a reliable source? [7].I would expect only editors from outside the Balkans to be involved with their comments. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I was not going to get involved but your comment: I would expect only editors from outside the Balkans to be involved with their comments is unacceptable and it should be stricken out of the RFC. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to comment: May I know why? We already know what people from the Balkans will say. These RfCs don't solve anything if only people from the Balkans are involved and otherwise I will have to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I know I'll get better and faster results there, but for some reason I still have faith in the RfC system. I'll tell you what: if you or other people with Balkanic descent get involved in the RfC, I'll just bring it there: these pointless RfCs just waiste 30 days of time, that's all they do. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply I was involved some time ago in some similar disputes from where I can actually copy and paste my replies to answer your question. The short answer is that AGF is paramount here, so you should not be suspicious of other people based on their ethnic background. I accept your good faith and I may disagree with your arguments but I accept them at face value. You should do the same for everyone as well otherwise we are going to get a Wikipedia where you must show your passport to edit articles. Not a good picture. Don't you think? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues Reply2Believe me I would like to agree with you on this, but I waste too much time on controversial articles and as a result of my initial inexperience I have a block log that is often times used against my editing. This block has increased its tally often times because I have not been AGF'd by some peer editors, and admins who were completely unaware of content disputes focused only on evidence collected by people who weren't AGF-ing me and decided sometimes for unfair blocks. This is why I have stopped to AGF in this kind of issues: I know fully well who is involved in them and I advise that uninvolved people only be looking at the sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I sympathise but we should not generalise based on our bad experiences. I still think that a conversation should be carried out using intelligent arguments and be open to all. Balkanians or not everyone should offer their opinions and consensus should be reached on the strength of the arguments and not on the origin of their passport. The only thing the latter would do is create a bunch of anonymous accounts where everyone would not divulge their nationalities. This is not counting the existing accounts where the owner's nationality cannot be identified. Problem solved? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will give it another try with this one. If the RfC fails to have neutral contributors, I reserve the right to bring it to WP:RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Of course WP:RSN is also a good option. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that I agree very strongly with Dr. K's point, and would note that the arguments for and against inclusion of a source should stand up on their own, without having to show some sort of proof of ethnic background. Even further, it seems rather unlikely to me that those who are not from the Balkans would be less likely to be interested in the topic in the first place and those would be well versed in it would be quite few. Every wikipedian makes their own contribution, and none should be turned away for reasons that have nothing to do with the strength of that contribution. siafu (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much siafu for your considered and well made points. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although some editors may consider Vickers non reliable, her statement about the Greek-speaking minority in Albania is more than correct. The fact that she cites her sources, is OK by me. Plus, it's published by the Defense Academy of the United Kingdom Beserks (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek nationalist groups such as the American Hellenic Institute claim that the population figures for the minority are grossly distorted, citing the CIA World Fact Book (1992), which records the Greek minority at 8 percent of the total population, and the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation which estimates the Greek minority at roughly 8.75 percent of the population of Albania. The problem here is that since 1992 around a million Albanians, including ethnic Greeks, have emigrated in search of work, and therefore the CIA 1992 Fact Book, which cites figures taken before the collapse of Communism, is hopelessly out of date. Clearly, much needs to be done to clarify the exact size of the Greek minority.

Exactly why is Vickers considered unreliable? Sure, she specializes in Albania, and this inevitably leads to some sort of bias, but the text I read seems reasonable. In fact, she clearly states that the situation is unclear as no census includes ethnicity, and I cannot find any fault with stating that 1992 data are hopelessly out of date. Of course, these data would still be valid to refer to the minority as a whole (i.e. "Greeks from Albania"), rather than the actual number still living there. After all, no one is subtracting 800,000 Albanians who live in Greece from Albania's population either... As long as it is made clear that these numbers represent estimates by one (admittedly well-informed) author, I see no problem with including them. Constantine ✍ 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues is referring to this edit[8] made by Athenean. Beserks (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction made by Constantine. As long as it is made clear that rhere are more ethnic Greeks with Albanian citizenship than are currently residing in Albania and said numbers are clearly attributed to the author I don't see a problem.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is whether Vickers is reliable or not. Beserks (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, she is clearly an expert on the country, having published quite a few books on it, so she should know what she's talking about. I don't see a specific argument as to her not being reliable. She is certainly no Albanian nationalist, her sourcing seems OK, and what she writes is quite reasonable... Whether we take her estimate (or guesstimate) or not, she is a knowledgeable source. Constantine ✍ 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Some users want to monopolize the sources with one single sentence from a 2001 book. There are many updated sources like:

• [9](Recent surveys taken by Greek scholars have furnished the surprising number of sixty thousand.)
• Miranda Vickers
• [10]

and yet articles like Greeks and Greeks in Albania are monopolized with one single outdated source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Vickers is a partisan source, clearly pro-Albanian [[11]][[12]]. I don't understand why on the other hand we should ignore credible source in favor of povish stuff.Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source that you provided doesn't even spell her name correctly (it says Martha rather than Miranda). The source has been blessed by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, it is well referenced and it perfectly qualifies as a reliable source. It clearly explains why the CIA data is correct (in fact the CIA data shows the overall Albanian population incorrectly as 3.6M when it is 3.2M by the Albanian Instat).--Sulmues ^(talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion was contaminated by the usual kalabalık of people that I expected to be around, rather than uninvolved ones, I will bring it to WP:RSN. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither the CIA nor the Instat are flawed because CIA gives figures about 2010 while instat about January 2008. Btw Alexikoua Martha Vickers?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Instat is what we should rely on. It is the most serious authority. How can we expect the CIA to be more accurate than Instat of Albania? The CIA gives a figure of 3.6M, when we know fully well that in Albania we have only 3.2M residents. 3.2M is the number given by Instat and should be respected. As a result the CIA number is unreliable and should be avoided. Vickers very clearly explains the CIA flaw. I thank Constantine who as always takes a very measured approach and also Anothroskon, who endorsed him, and I have no problem qualifying that the source is Vickers. She is the best international source we have so that we give accurate infomration about the Greeks in Albania. I brought it to RSN to have more support and then I will bring back the Vickers' number.--Sulmues ^(talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RSN is irrelevant, the point is we have better sources. Jeffries for examples, who gives a figure based on a survey of the literature. It's painfully obvious that you want to use Vickers and only Vickers, because she gives the lowest estimate of all. Athenean (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is Jeffries, can you bring him in a link? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We could also use the Greek scholars research that puts that number at 60,000 or do you regard that also as pov? However, all the sources are rs(the military academy of the UK doesn't publish unreliable authors)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a census with ethnic criteria, any number out forth is an estimate (or rather guesstimate). In such cases, the typical action is that a range of estimates by sources that are reliable should be provided, and that includes Vickers, the INSTAT and the CIA. All of them may have an agenda, consciously or not (for Albania's INSTAT for instance, any country's statistical agency will meddle with the numbers in accordance with state policy/priorities, just look at what the Greek agency did with the economy), but they are well-informed sources and worthy of inclusion.

And I hate to sound preachy, but seriously, could both sides please stop this bickering and behave like serious people? Does anyone truly believe that whatever we write here will influence reality on the ground, or destroy or raise our nations? The articles should try to reflect reality, and if in reality there are several sources giving different estimates, we use them all, provided they come from credible sources. The tendency for each camp to immediately and without any thought at compromise dismiss any source other than the one that conforms with its own ideal wish-world is maddening. Using only the lowest numbers or the highest will not change the actual size of the minority, whatever it is. Rant over, for now... Constantine ✍ 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I explained earlier the CIA number is completely unreliable as Vickers explains. Instat doesn't have any ethnicity figures because they're not held any longer since the 1980s, so that cannot be used either. Let's wait till Athenean brings this Jeffries and let's see if he is reliable and if he is we source from Vicker and Jeffries only. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA Factbook

The CIA Factbook on Albania [13] says: Population 3,639,453 (July 2010), Greek 3%. I did the math, and it turned out 109,183 Albanian nationals of Greek ethnicity. Beserks (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above, since we have additional sources that raise the number to 200k.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you calculate 3,6 million citizens + 800,000 Albanian nationals living in Greece = 4.4m. Now 3% of 4.4 million is 132,000. Not a big difference. I'll stick to 110,000. There is no need for calculations. The CIA Factbook is more than reliable, it explicitly states that Greeks are 3% of 3,6m = 110,000 Greeks. Beserks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Beserks, we don't need the flawed CIA data for the estimation of the population. Just the fact that the total is wrong (3.6M) vs the correct number given by the Albanian Instat (3.2M) tells you that you have right there a discrepancy of 400,000 citizens, which shows that the CIA data is incorrect. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Neither the CIA nor the Instat are flawed because CIA gives figures about 2010 while instat about January 2008.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Instat figure is 2010 estimate, not 2008. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the RSN I also added Vickers estimates.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ZRrethues: There is no concensus: as far I see no 'resolved' tag. Also even there was you need to fill a new case about the specific claim (not a generalized one one), since she has been already rejected in the past about specific claims, by administrators [[14]]. No wonder here she contradicts all the mainstream bibliographyAlexikoua (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the results of the RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After a carefull look, the exact quote of Vickers is (p. 4):

Estimates of the ethnic Greek minority in Albania range from two to seven percent of the total population, but the generally accepted view is that today there are approximately between 45-50,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania, roughly 2 percent of the total Albanian population. According to the 1961 census, the number of Greek speakers was 40,000, and by 1981 the figure had risen to 58,758, a rise in proportion to the general increase in Albania’s population.

M. Vickers is often suscebtible to 'typographical' errors. So here she says that the census in Albania (of 1981) counted 58,758 Greeks. No wonder there was no 1981 census in Albania. The census that showed 58,758 Greeks was the 1989 census [[15]] (a census widely considered as biased and conducted by the commnunist regime).

On second look there was neither a 1961 census in Albania... Seems the entire paragraph is full of errors, not to mention that she doesn't reveal any inline.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Vickers is partisan and POV, and cannot be used to quite numbers for the Greek minority in Albania. First of all, she provides no information on how she arrived at the figure of 45,000. What sources did she use? Or did she go house to house and count minority members herself? That is highly partisan is also evident from the fact that the word "Greek" is almost always followed by the the word "nationalist", while "nationalist" is never used to describe Albanian views, as if there is no such thing as Albanian nationalism. Selected quotes follow:

• The controversial mayor of Himara, Vasil Bollano... Maybe we can use Vickers to move Vasil Bollano to Controversial mayor of Himara Vasil Bollano.

• The following month, Albanian high school students from Saranda staged demonstrations during which they burned the Greek flag and chanted “Himara is Albanian”. Apparently, members of the minorty demanding legitimate minority rights are "nationalists", but the studenets are not.

• This event was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The patience of the Albanian government had run out. In their view it was time to silence Bollano before southern Albania erupted into inter-ethnic violence. Brazen POV editorialzing

• In March 2009, Himara’s mayor was finally indicted by the Albanian prosecution... "Finally"?

• In a major concession to the minority two schools have also been granted an operating licence outside the official “Greek minority zone”, one in Korca and the other in Himara. How and why are two schools a "major concession"?

• Tirana has had to deal with the minority issue in a very measured way in order on the one hand not to anger Albanians by appearing too lenient in response to nationalist demands,... In other words, asking to be educated in their own language is a "nationalist demand" while those who oppose it for no good reason are not "nationalists".

• not to mention the generous Greek pensions of around 100-150 euros a month paid to every ethnic Greek family by the Greek government. 100-150 euros is "generous"?

For the above reasons, I don't believe this source can be considered objective regarding the numbers of the Greek minority in Albania. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments that aren't OR deductions?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments at all? Also, please indent your comments. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The strongest

There should be a paragraph about the fact that Greece was the most powerful power in the world in the 11th century. It is not neutral--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Greece" wasn't. "Greece" didn't exist in the 11th century. Maybe you've heard that the Byzantine empire was? I'm not sure it was the strongest at that particular time. But in any case, this article is about the Greeks as an ethnic group, not about the power struggles of whatever different states thy lived in over the centuries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

So Athenean where in these sources does it say that there are 500,000 Greeks in the UK? Turco85 (Talk) 10:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)