Jump to content

Talk:Greece

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ce107 (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 29 April 2009 (→‎languages spoken in greece). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

Unresolved
 – Split long thread (117kb) to Talk:Greece/Naming poll per WP:SIZE. slakr\ talk /

The Map and The Map Only, Please

Unresolved
 – Split long (45kb) thread to Talk:Greece/The Map per WP:SIZE. --slakr\ talk /

Reviving Taivo's proposal

Given all this endless bickering and debate and the labyrinth of semantic arguments we have been through, I for one, have had enough. Therefore I go on record supporting Taivo's proposal for a mention of "former" in the intro and leaving Rep. Mace. on the map. Taivo also proposed, correct me if I am wrong, that further mention of RoM in the article can be avoided. So here we are:

Support* Taivo's proposal. * Support will be withdrawn if flag/nationality-based analysis is undertaken at the end of this activity Dr.K. logos 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Reasons clearly stressed out already.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my above comments. Appeasement is never an answer, and flies in the face of Wiki's NPOV policies. The sensitivities of a certain group do not outweigh policy. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using WWII terminology applied to Hitler is no way to frame an argument. Also calling Taivo's proposal appeasement is a hardline stance. But thank you for your contribution regardless. Rest assured I will not analyse your vote at the end of this discussion based on flags or any other grounds. Dr.K. logos 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appeasement refers to way more than Hitler, so don't even try that argument. Dicdef: "1. an appeasing or being appeased". Flags, what are you on about? As for how you analyse the vote, I don't give a fig. "Thanks for your input, just the same. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flags as in Husond's flags attached to the names of users to show their nationality. As far as appeasement I still think it is a loaded word but I respect your opinion. As far as analysing the vote comment that I made, it was sarcasm. I was referring to nationality based analysis of the poll results undertaken by Husond et al. Maybe I should have flagged my original comment as sarcasm. Dr.K. logos 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, sorry -- I get it now. I don't display any flags as I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the earth/world/whatever. (Yes, I do pay taxes, so I don't do it for that reason  ;) Anyway, I do wish that people could get over nationalism, or allegience to the country of their ancestry. We all have to live on this planet, and it would be nice if we could all get along. (OK, now I sound like a Miss America contestant or Rodney King, LOL). •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks :) Dr.K. logos 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there's no need for any "former" in the lead, we should use the name that's used in the article itself: Republic of Macedonia. man with one red shoe 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Appeasement is not the answer, and flies in the face of NPOV principle. If the abuse of WP policies and administrative power is to prevail for some time, so be it. Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop using the "appeasement" word? Thanks. Comment withdrawn as unwarranted. Sorry Dr.K. logos 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Appeasement" is a very nice word when used in the proper situation, let's not ban words now... man with one red shoe 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "when used in the proper situation". But do you think when trying to reach a compromise this word helps? I am not trying to ban words. Just trying to frame a dialogue conducive to compromise. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it really seems that there won't be much room for a constructive contribution here for some time to come, so I'd rather withdraw from this topic for now. Good luck to everybody. Apcbg (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Apcbg. Hopefully one way or the other we'll get to the bottom of this. Hopefully sooner than later. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a direct link to the proposal in question would be really useful here, guys. :) John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the proposal:

::Just so it is clear, the article as it now stands I think is an acceptable version. There are two locations in the article where the name "Macedonia" is relevant (other than the references to the Greek provinces).

  • The lead paragraph. I have never objected to the wording "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in this case. I have added a footnote (that should remain) that references Macedonian naming dispute. The wikilink should not be to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because that is a non-existent article. The blue of the wikilink emphasizes the constitutional self-identifier of Macedonia while the black of "former Yugoslav" satisfies the needs of the Greek POV. I stated this point several days ago (it seems that long ago although it might have been yesterday morning).
  • The map. The map should stay as it currently is: "Rep. Mace." as that is the self-identifier. "Macedonia" would be ambiguous on the map, so the self-identifier is appropriate. As "FYROM" has not been identified as an acronym elsewhere in the article (and should not be), its use on the map would be doubly inappropriate--a) as an unknown acronym, and b) as an externally-imposed non-self-identification.
The article stayed stable with that configuration for several days through the hottest portion of this discussion. We will argue ad nauseum over this issue with neither the FYROM POV nor the non-FYROM POV ever budging. In the end, the situation will be resolved in Athens [...] (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Dr.K. logos 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- ah, so he didn't call fo the linking to include FY (I hadn't thought it did). I'll think on it a bit, although the concept still bothers me intellectually. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Unwillingly oppose. Sorry Τάσο. You know how much I respect you, but I personally accept no half-meters. My opinion is that there should be fYROM throughout the article. We don't agree on that? Then, ok, the only solution is ARBCOM. Full stop!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all Yannis. I completely understand and respect your opinion. I simply have had enough of this back and forth and it seemed to me to be a reasonable proposal so I thought I would give it a try. But in no way this means that I would, in any way, be bothered if anyone, let alone my friends, disagreed with my proposal. That would be undemocratic and anyway respect and friendship transcend such academic questions. In addition I know that the arbcom can cover much more ground on other contentious issues like ethnic issues etc. So it may well be inevitable and it could even be the better way. Take care for now and and it was a pleasure seeing you, as always. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - as the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself. And, for what it's worth, I used to work in patents and copyrights for the North American pet food division of a major international firm. Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement. There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement." No you wouldn't. If you would, your should fire your lawyer.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise." If the use of RoM throughout the article is the way you perceive compromise, then this is no compromise.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself". 1) The "above editor" has a username you could use. 2) This is not what I said.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you have no interest, seemingly, in compromising your position with wikipedia's policy, which explicitly says the name of the article should be used wherever possible in other articles to prevent confusion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you interpret policy. Is it your interpretation authoritative? You're welcomed.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I reminded of Medusa? Or maybe Scylla and Charybdis is apt. BTW, Yanni, as you will find out if Arbcomm decides to accept and then issue a ruling, John happens to be spot-on with policy. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm tired of drama and this seems like a way to end it. However I really want this to go to ArbCom and I certainly want ArbCom to take care of the abomination that happened a while ago and its main perpetrator, because this will give a clear message on what Wikipedia stands for. If Taivo/Dr.K.'s proposal is accepted I will not oppose but my real wish is ArbCom. --Avg (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Avg for your comments. I echo your feelings completely. That's why I proposed it. Even if it comes to nothing at least I wouldn't say I didn't try to end this sooner rather than later. I also understand fully your reasons for wanting to go to arbcom. I'll be there if it comes to that. There are some issues I am really interested in that I would like to present. Hopefully this proposal can end the edit warring at least until arbcom decides. Who knows. Anyway take care for now and it was a pleasure talking to you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support I think it is a very logical proposal. --Athenean (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's no objective need to have "f.Y." in the lead, where the focus of discussion is the simple geographical facts of what countries are neighboring on each other. For the same reason that we don't need to talk about the "former Yugoslav Slovenia" when talking about the geographical situation of Austria. Pushing in this bit would have no other function than symbolically bowing down before the Greek POV concerns, and the whole reason we are having this discussion is that we shouldn't do so. We are already mentioning "f.Y." in the passage further down where the political dispute are mentioned. That's where it belongs, as pertinent historical background info explaining the timing of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe that FYROM should be used throughout the entire article. Kyriakos (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppoprt. Taivo's knowledge on this subject may not even be near complete but it is interesting to say the least. Reaper7 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are people assuming a lack of knowledge? And, even if it were true, what would be the relevance? •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fut. Perf. puts it well. The proposal is well-meaning but it doesn't resolve the underlying problem here, i.e. the incessant POV-pushing by certain editors. We're not likely to fix that problem without someone - ArbCom presumably - banning the worst offenders. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fut.Perf. Mentions of Macedonia in our articles should be treated no differently from mentions of any other country. - Ev (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoarchiving

I've enabled autoarchiving since this talk page seems to be constantly growing. :P Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece protected?

How nice for Greece to find protection. When the borders open again remember to mention that Corfu offers unique opera performances. Trompeta (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of M.

and then protection of the article no editing allowed. Since the matter went to arbitration such change is delinquent behaviour. (The map is also Rep. Maced.) --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Ioannes. The whole matter is delinquent. The name in the article was "FYROM" or "former Yugoslavic republic of Makedonia" and then some...editors... came and changed the name according to their own political beliefs and the pro-Fyromian beliefs. The Greeks did not start this issue in wikipedia they just protested and still protest with the change that some others started. --79.166.48.76 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the RfAr, and do provide diffs. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

languages spoken in greece

There is no such thing as macedonian spoken in greece. There is a slavic idiom called Dopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassaro (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Tassaro but you are wasting your words in here... --79.166.48.76 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Greece has the only linguistic border in all of Europe? Odd. (Reality is that as of 1986, 180K people in Greece spoke the language. Don't much care what it's called in Greece -- after all, the name ελληνικά is not much used outside of Greece. Not that this has much relation to the article per se, but it does to any RfC's and RfAr's this disaster of a discussion page spawns, ktl. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide verifiable sources supporting your statement regarding those 180k people? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ethnologue -- look it up. No European country is purely homogenous in terms of language (or anything else) and border regions are always polyglottic. That's just reality. BTW: Greek is spoken in RoM. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the actually page in Ethnologue showing the 180k speakers of Macedonian (called "Slavic" inside Greece). (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
According to 'A Concise History of Greece' by Richard Clogg says there is a small number of people that speak Slavic idioms in the North of Greece, though their numbers are undetermined but small. Kyriakos (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue didn't carry a linguistic census in Greece last time i checked so no matter how respected the source is for linguists it's just a guess (and a wild one). The language exists and yes it is spoken by some people especially in Florina prefecture but it isn't spoken so broadly, not even close. At least that's what i can say as a native of Thessaloniki and Greek Macedonia. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of the official Greek government responses concerning this Pseudo-makedonian minority in Greece:

Athens: No Macedonian Minority in Greece: In a reply letter sent on Friday to FYR Macedonian Premier Nikola Gruevski, Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis claimed there is no Macedonian minority in Greece. “There is no 'Macedonian' minority in Greece. There never has been. In this respect, any allegations regarding the existence of such a minority are totally unfounded, politically motivated and disrespectful of the historic realities of the region,” wrote Karamanlis. On Monday Gruevski wrote to Athens asking for the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Greece and the return of property to Macedonian refugees who were forced to flee northern Greece during the 1946-1949 Greek Civil War. “As for any properties issue, any individual can take legal recourse before the Courts, including the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,” said Karamanlis. Karamanlis rebuffed Gruevski’s letter as an attempt to deviate from the objectives of the ongoing UN sponsored “name” talks between the two countries by raising a number of “non-existent and unsubstantiated issues”, he said. Relations between the two countries hit a new low in April when Athens blocked Skopje’s NATO accession saying the country should change its name first. Greece argues that Macedonia’s name might imply territorial claims towards its own northern province with the same name. There are no hard historical records about their numbers. Some historians say that as many as 100,000 ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece fled the country during the war between the right-wing monarchist government and the Democratic Army of Greece, a branch of the Communist party. Athens does not recognise those who fled as Macedonians and refuses to issue citizenship to them or to their descendants. Referring to a small political party called Rainbow in Greece claiming to represent the Macedonian minority in Greece, Athens says that “a fistful” of people in Greece supporting Skopje’s story cannot be called a minority.--79.166.2.237 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal experience and political grandstanding are not reliable sources. Academic references, like Ethnologue, are reliable sources. Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source. (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Agree with Taivo in principle, though with the proviso that the Ethnologue listings for Greece, particularly that for Macedonian in Greece, does contain some real howlers [1]. Howlers that are so obvious we really shouldn't go by a "we'll repeat whatever the source says, even if we know it's wrong" automatism. Ethnologue puts the number of Macedonian speakers at "180,180 in Greece (1986 census)" - but as we can easily demonstrate from other reliable sources, there never was a census in 1986, and no census for the last half century has ever counted minority language speakers. But of course the existence of the Macedonian language in Greece is beyond doubt, it can easily be sourced to other, more specialised research literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the "howler" is at the link to Macedonian that you provided. There's also a difference between what we, as academics, would consider a reliable source (based on personal knowledge, experience, research, professional intuition, etc.) and what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. So while I would agree with your skepticism on a professional level (every time I correct an error in Ethnologue two more seem to crop up), on the Wikipedia level it is a different matter and Ethnologue is, by definition, a Wikipedia reliable source unless superceded by another reliable source. (Taivo (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The howler is, as I said, that it is citing a census that never existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, concerning the link you have as record that in Greece there are 180,180 <<macedonian>> speakers. Your source appears to be a census of 1986, can you elaborate please to give me some more information’s (method, statistical analyses, figures e.t.c) as about the compilation of the specific statistic number? In my opinion this number is not reflect the real situation. And I give you two sources to look at. The first one is the report that prepared by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, "Macedonian Minorities: The Slav Macedonians of Northern Greece and the Treatment of Minorities in the Republic of Macedonia", (Oxford 1994), p.7 and the one of the U.S.Department of State, "Greece Human Rights Practices, 1993" (January 31st 1994) estimate the number of Slav-speakers in Greece at about 40,000-50,000 people. --79.166.2.237 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Helsinki reference isn't clear about whether or not it is a linguistic survey--ethnicity alone is not a marker of linguistic usage. The other looks better since it seems to actually estimate speakers and not just ethnic identification. If you have an exact reference to it then use it to edit the number in the article (and include the reference) since it looks like a more recent survey. I'm not wedded to Ethnologue or its number, but it just required a reliable source with a new number to supplant the only other reliable source available. (Taivo (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Ethnologue version 14 (valid from 2000 to 2005) contains different information from Ethnologue version 15 (from 2005 onwards). Any person qualified to write on Greece would know that there was no census in Greece in 1986 (they happen every 10 years so the nearest ones were 1981 and 1991) and that the last time "mother tongue" and "most frequently used language" were asked in a Greek census was 1951. The number for the "mother tongue" question (the other number for frequently used language was even smaller) did make it into Ethnologue v.14 but Ethnologue v.15 for reasons that can only be guessed (pretty easily I may add) chose to come up with a fake census and a figure in the 200k region. Anyone that has enough brains to pass a thesis examination for a Ph.D. (as Taivo has) is capable of looking at the differences between Ethnologue v.14 and Ethnologue v.15 and noticing suspicious changes based on sources dated before 2005. A clear example is in Arvanitika: v14 claims (correctly - I wish I knew how many speakers there were left) a range between 50,000 (Newmark) to 140,000 possible speakers (1977 Trudgill and Tzavaras). v15 comes up with 150,000 (2000) without a clear attribution (what happened in 2000) or an explanation of how a language in clear decline increased in numbers. Moreover v15 creates a new category of 10k speakers of Tosk Albanian for the region of Epirus; this is now separate from Arvanitika despite the fact that the page on Arvanitika still includes the reference to a Northwestern Arvanitika dialect from v14 that could only have referred to the region of Epirus. There is a clear inference (from the text as well) that the inclusion of this new category is related to the political issue of the Cham expulsion (and the claims about "Orthodox Chams"). Finally the very concept of what these numbers mean is in doubt. The north of the village of Andros is mentioned for Arvanitika: bilingualism in our families ended with our grandparent's generation. Extremely few among our parent's generation could converse in Arvanitika - the rest retained a few words or curses and our generation still has those (if at all). To portray the area as Arvanitika speaking is so misleading that it can only be done on purpose.
There are published books (in Greece - by leftist Greek journalists and amateur historians) that refer to figures around 200k (or even more for that matter) for Slavomacedonian speakers in Greece (again based on some dubious definition); large agenda-driven figures can also be found for Vlachs and Arvanites - since FPS, Taivo and Jim62sch and the rest of the gang are such experts on Greece I leave it as an exercise to them to locate these sources and at least put a fig leaf on. Until then use of non-existent census figure in Ethnologue makes a mockery of the academic standards they so passionately purport to be trying to uphold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce107 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you choose to insult me when I made it clear that all that was needed to change the Ethnologue reference was another reliable reference with a better number? And the number of speakers of Macedonian in Greece is not so interesting to me that I'm going to spend time looking at the 14th edition of Ethnologue when the 15th is available. Like I said before your insults, the US Department of State reference seems quite adequate to replace the Ethnologue number since it appears to have been a linguistic survey. Put your spectacles on and see that I was not touting Ethnologue as the end-all and be-all of survey material. Unless you just enjoy insulting people, learn to read plain English. (Taivo (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oh I do enjoy insulting people whose behaviour makes them fully deserving of insults. It was you that made the issue of Ethnologue being a RS a big affair (as scripta manent - even in WP - all a reader has is to go up a few comments and see arrogant statements such as "Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source." when there was no census in 1986 to begin with!) The gall of some people is astounding: they've all become "specialists" when they can hardly follow the literature on Greece - because if they did you would be (a) dismissing Ethnologue's 1986 crap outright and (b) quoting the V-PRC survey which is from this decade and despite an obvious flaw of assuming no pluri-lingual descent/ability is the most recent and extensive statistical country-wide survey of use/understanding of non-Greek languages and significant Greek dialects in Greece to-date. If you were a specialist you would know that the US SD's "estimate" is not the result of a survey (do you seriously believe that any type of similar survey by a foreign power into such a matter would have gone unnoticed and not being reported in the Greek media causing a diplomatic episode?) but the estimate based on visits to some parts of Macedonia (in Greece) of a certain diplomat (later to become infamous through a very public resignation) called Brady Keisling that single-handedly raised the profile of the issue in the SD's HR reports. If you were a specialist - instead of trying to guess numbers - you would be giving the number of villages in which the language was spoken by at least some inhabitants according to the 1996 Euromosaic study (which your pal FPS has apparently read - but still has been unable to digest enough to add Arvanites in Thrace in his "map"). Then again you could do worse - your other pal Jim62sch seriously believes that you could have a non-government sponsored census (mind you not survey) in Greece (actually I wonder in how many developed countries can anyone other than the government "convince" people to stay home and open their doors for census takers to visit). Or that the results of such a private 1986 census would not become public until 2005! Maybe the evil Greek nationalists had a hand in that as well. God spare us from the all-powerful WP "specialists". Ce107 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I am perfectly clear about your failure to read my comment above. Your beef with me is that I asked for a better reference than Ethnologue, and then when another editor provided one, I agreed that the one he provided was a better reference? So now you are here to "enlighten" me that your references are superior even when they seem to say exactly the same thing? I'm not trying to guess anything, I'm just relying on what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. You've obviously got a bee up your bottom for some other reason because none of my comments about sourcing were on the level of the attack that you are initiating. (Taivo (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oh I did read your comment. But I also read what you wrote before that and it is obvious you're trying to cover up your arrogant attitude despite your obvious ignorance of basic facts: "Until you can produce a reliable linguistic source that has conducted more recent linguistic surveys in northern Greece, then Ethnologue is the most recent, most reliable source." and then "I'm not sure what the "howler" is at the link to Macedonian that you provided." and then "If you have an exact reference to it then use it to edit the number in the article (and include the reference) since it looks like a more recent survey. I'm not wedded to Ethnologue or its number, but it just required a reliable source with a new number to supplant the only other reliable source available." Even after FPS (for Pete's sake not some pesky Greek nationalist with a POV agenda) explains more than once that there was no census in 1986 and that Ethnologue's number is bogus you insist on talking about "more recent" and "only other reliable". So if Britanica (a far more serious outfit than Ethnologue) claimed that Greece had a population of 20 million according to the 1986 census you'd call that reliable even though it is an obvious error (both the magnitude of the number as well as the year of the census)? Learn to admit your prejudice causes you to make mistakes or stop bitching about the "level of the attack" any knowledgeable observer would "initiate". Better still stick to things you actually are knowledgeable about. As for my references if you actually read them you'd see that Eurominority counts villages with full or partial use of the language and V-PRC gives percentages (being sample-based). Neither agree with Ethnologue and V-PRC comes above the SD estimate. Ce107 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're a) assuming that census means only governmentally-sponsored, and b) that even if it is, the census results are published immediately.
Nonetheless, if anyone here is benighted enough to believe that a nation's borders are absolute, and people on the borders do not know languages other than the most common language of the state, I feel sorry for them: the use of language just doesn't work that way. Let me know if you find a mono-glottic country -- even the island nation of Japan, which is somewhat isolated, has some speakers of a non-Japanese language. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real number of the Slavophones in Greek Macedonia

IMF has published new GDP figures two days ago. Please edit that. LINK - [[2]] ---Gggh (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of the Slavophones in Greek Macedonia is no more than 50.000,according to impartial sources: "According to the report on Greece in the United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1990 (1991:1172), there are between 20,000 and 50,000 Macedonian-speaking people in all of Greek Macedonia. In a recent report to the European Commission entitled "Minority Languages in Northern Greece," Van Boeschoten (1993) estimates that in the district of Florina and the neighboring region of Aridhea alone there are approximately 18,000 Macedonian-speaking inhabitants out of a total population of 60,000 people".[3] "The Macedonian conflict,ethnic nationalism in a transnational world",page 78 --ΦΔ (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asuuming that that number is correct, it is still greater than zero. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article from Loring M. Danforth also states : For obvious reasons it is difficult to estimate the number of Makedonian-speaking people who remain in North Greece today. For equally obvious reason it is even more difficult to estimate how many people have a Makedonian, as opposed to a Greek, national identity. Tell me Jim62sch (along with your friend Taivo) are you 100% sure that www.ethnologue.com is a reliable source ?? --79.166.2.237 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your issue is. Ethnologue is a reliable source by Wikipedia definition. That doesn't mean that it is error-free, just that it is a Wikipedia-defined reliable source. In the absence of other reliable sources, it should be used. Apparently, as I have said several times already, there are more reliable figures available, published in more specific sources. I have already said several times already, that the newer, more accurate numbers should be used here. Pick exactly which source you consider to be the most accurate and the number you want to use for Macedonian speakers in Greece and we can request an admin to change the number in the article. This is not a wrestling match and you are being uncivil to make it one. (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Unprotect

The article must be unprotected. So ok, there is no number for Slavophones, for Balkan bears, for crazy drivers, but there are gaps in this article that can be filled and all editors who are discussing can carry on here. But that is probably too simple. Trompeta (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is an issue over the name of Macedonia in this article, it must remain protected. Over the last month, within minutes of it being unprotected, it has suffered heavy edit warring. If you have something that needs changing, and you have a consensus or good references for the change, contact an admin and they will make the change. Until ArbCom decides on the naming issue, however, it is best that this article remain fully protected. My suggestion is to present your proposed change here, let a couple of others comment or agree, and then present a solid case to an admin for the change and they will make it. (Taivo (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's just two word, former Yugoslav, so the whole country is blocked. The issue will last as long at the two countries are negotiating, you see what I mean, the negotiations makes is a legitimate issue, except for Wikipedia. Trompeta (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be unprotected. man with one red shoe 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of crazy drivers is known. Most of the population. Dr.K. logos 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last time this article's protection expired, it last exactly 30 minutes (maybe a whole hour) before it had to be protected again. Tasos is right--most of the population consists of crazy drivers. (Taivo (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've asked the Arbcom to accompany unprotection with a temporary injunction against changing the contentious bits. Of course it's a bit of an open question to what extent the angry young men on this page would be prepared to actually heed such an injunction, but it would be worth a try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece&oldid=286937692"