Talk:Greeks

Edits by User:Pensionero

This user keeps removing the estimate for 3,000,000 Greek Americans (both logged in and as an IP [1]), which is sourced to the U.S. Department of State, claiming that it is "false information" and that "2 million Greeks that don't know they are Greeks don't exist" or something like that. Notwithstanding that this claim is ludicrous (of course Greek Americans "know" that they have Greek ancestry, duh!), the figure is sourced. The information is verifiable and there is some kind of fact checking at the State Department, so the figure meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS and should stay. Athenean (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to tell exactly what's going on just from the revert edit summaries, but it looks like a conflict of reliable sources. You say est. 3M from the State Dept. source. He says 1/1.5M from 2000 census and 2009 census bureau estimate. Is that right? I haven't looked at the sources myself, but, if so, isn't the answer to simply quote a range with a note explaining the source conflict? Or is that too easy? DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the pre-Pensionero version includes both the census and U.S. State Dept. figures, with a footnote clarifying that the State Dept. figure is an estimate for any Greek ancestry. Pensionero simply keeps removing the State figure, but I think as long as State Dept. meets WP:V, the removal is unwarranted. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see now. What I suggested is actually what you are defending. I think you are right of course. But having said that, I think instinctively the census information is going to be more accurate - the Census Bureau's main job is to generate this kind of data. Whereas the figure in the State Dept. Background Note is just a passing comment, and is not a major part of the note. Could esily be incorrect. But without a tertiary/secondary source discussing that point, it's not for us to make that judgment call. I think it needs to stay as it is until a third source clarifies the difference. 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, pretty much all this user does is go around and reduce the population figures of ethnic groups [2] other than his own, while inflating those of his own (Bulgarians). Athenean (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't impossible to there are 3 million Greeks in USA when census show results of 1.3 million, where these 3 million people declared that they are Greeks, isn't census the counting of the population? Pensionero (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Census doesn't catch everyone. Now, I've had quite enough of your POV-pushing, going around reducing the numbers of ethnic groups other than your own, while inflating those of your own. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is unpossible if there were 1.3 million catched and 2 million not catched Greeks US 300 million population would be billion not catched on census? And stop with your manipulations telling the people that I am reducing the numbers of ethnic groups, you should give at least one more example besides this edit on Albanians, in which I didn't count the only ancestral Albanians in Turkey. Pensionero (talk) 16:38, 01 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is we just don't know why there's a difference between the two sources. There could be a good explanation. For example, the census is "self-declared" i.e it's up to the individual whether they want to declare Greek ancestry. Some may not have declared it. It's therefore not absolute fact. The number in the State dept. document may be derived from some sort of statistical extrapolation using immigration numbers, and may be more accurate. Or you could be right and it's just wrong. But we don't have enough information to know. That's why Wikipedia is based on reporting what WP:RS say and not WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Athenean, a census does not count everybody, any demographer would know that. Some census' only count country of birth, whilst others are outdated, or most likely people declare themselves as "White other". This user is also removing sourced information on Turkish topic's (e.g. Turks in Germany). They argue that newspaper articles are not reliable yet also remove academic sources (books and journals) as well- when they don't "like" the academic estimate of course. Articles should show a range of sources... there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area.Turco85 (Talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As "there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area" The estimate of census bureau still exist, it shows estimated number higher than the census 2000. These 3 million are not true and you know it, but however. Pensionero (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Greeks in the US

If the 1980 US census showed 959.856 Greeks and the 1990 US census 1.110.292 Greeks and the 2000 US census 1.153.295, how then does the US state department come up with 3 million Greek Americans? The US census has an ancestry,religion and language code. If you are not ticking the boxes it means you are not Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

- The increase means that there is recent emigration. As for you; well your issues must span the emotoinal spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.47 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Related" groups, for the n-th time

I don't know when and how the "reated groups" field crept back into the infobox, but I'm pretty certain it should go out again. The "related" field is essentially deprecated (see background discussion here and here), because it almost invariably involves WP:OR in deciding on an arbitrary set of criteria of what to include. There simply is no clearly defined academic consensus concept about what "relationship" between ethnic groups even means. In the present case, we had a hodgepodge of groups, most of which aren't even "related to Greeks" in any possibly meaningful way, because they simply are Greeks themselves. The field was so chaotic that some editors felt the need of having a disclaimer to go with it [3]. An extremely awkward solution, which just goes to demonstrate how untenable the whole concept was. The comment itself was a paradigm case of unsourced OR. Infoboxes should only be for information that is undoubtably factual. Anything that is in need of any kind of hedging, disclaimers, attribution or explanation should never be in an infobox. If the status of those groups is interesting, treat it in the article, in proper prose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: for the record, the field seems to have been re-introduced by an anon IP here [4], and then expanded by another anon here [5] and by another newish contributor here, all of this without any discussion or even edit summaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is already the nth time. I wonder where was I the previous n-1 times. Regardless, I agree. Chalk one up on the dubious merits of infoboxes. I can't prove it, but there is something in the infobox make-up which promotes this type of WP:OR. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Image of the lead

I suggest to use table for images, like that of Persians and Turkish people articles, so each name would be placed exactly under its corresponding image, and also it is far easier to edit... --Z 15:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yet another new fashion in infoboxes. How about just getting rid of the whole gallery instead? It really serves no useful purpose, and pushes a lot of other infobox content that is a lot more useful far down the screen. If infoboxes are meant to "provide the an overview about the most basic facts about a topic at a single glance", then I really don't know how the current box does anything like it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty unsophisticated. IMHO, these sort of galleries always makes a country (any country) look Ruritanian ("look at what we've done.We're not as insignificant as you thought"). I stress any country...I'm not particularly referring to this gallery. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the appropriate venue to raise this issue would be some sort of centralized discussion on the subject, e.g. over at the WikiProject Ethnic Groups or something like that, not this talkpage. But if I remember correctly, there was such a debate over there a while back and the result was inconclusive, with a majority of people in favor of keeping the galleries. Athenean (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

True, but the wikiproject discussion has no central authority in deciding this. We could still form a local consensus about this article – and, if we do so, possibly set a positive example for others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Athenean: a strange comment. These galleries are not centrally imposed, despite their ubiquity. There is no reason why consensus on a particular article couldn't remove the gallery. In fact, what goes on in other articles is no argument for keeping it here per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Noone talked about centrally imposing these collages/galleries. We all know that Wikipedia is a fairly decentralised project. From Athenean's comment I gather that there is no general consensus against the use of these collages on a project-wide basis. There is no reason to assume that consensus for this article will be any different. As far as this collage being crap or not, the ubiquitous nature of these collages on so many articles shows that a lot of people like this construction and go to great lengths to produce it. Calling it crap may not be the most politic way of describing such widespread consensus and established practice on such a large scale. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Who called it crap? I said it was unsophisticated. (Or are you getting confused by the pre-existing shortcut title?) DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the confusion angle. The non-derogatory redirect is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You chose the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS instead. I wonder why. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"The confusion angle"! A pointless exchange. DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Callas vs Dimas

I read with dismay that Pyrros Dimas was placed in the infobox by a majority vote. This is very sad, it just proves that the majority of people in Greece/Europe/the world are illiterate boors, ready to testify that the most influential (and I'm choosing my words very carefully here) opera singer of all time is somehow less worthy of mention than an athlete of dubious pharmacological status, who distinguished himself by lifting very heavy metal objects over his head in a particular manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.183.199 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

...

if i'm greek, i'll burn my own home.... if i'm not greek, hehe ...hehe..run baby, no wait don't run....let's do this slowly...ur way...slow painful..end..u like that.....come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.98.51 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancient vs. Modern

Look Athenean, I hate making this personal but you don't own wikipedia. stop deleting sourced material. That is against wikipedia policy. It is very clear that ancient greeks and modern greeks are not the same thing - we wouldn't claim that ancient egyptians and modern egyptians are the same so stop pushing your POV. Ottomanist (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Athenean was right to revert your addition. Regardless of what the sources say, your verbiage is wildly out of line with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and original research policies. I have not yet encountered an example of an edit that begins with "it should be noted that" that runs afoul of these two policies (not guidelines, but bright line, non-negotiable policies), and this one is no different. I haven't even bothered to look at the sources (although I will try to access them) because the wording is unquestionably inappropriate. Horologium (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the source does support the statement (which I can't comment on) then it could certainly find a place somewhere in the article, but not in the POV-pushing it was entered. Something more along the lines of "It has been suggested by X that..." would be far more appropriate, though WP:FRINGE should of course be kept in mind.Euchrid (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what happened to assuming good faith. I have provided sourced material which you can edit to make it sound more professional but you cannot delete it. Please respect some etiquette rules. Ottomanist (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Moreover, such 'verbiage' is a relic of the past i.e., that modern-Greeks are related to the Ancient Greeks. So provide sources and stop editing sourced material - Ottomanist (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but users who aren't involved in the talk - neither have they checked out the sources, are coming on undoing edits, what's going in, who's making them do this? - Ottomanist (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is negligible. You appear to have a belief that a modern nation needs to be pure with its ancestors not having mixed to claim descent from the antique race. Look at a fictional scenario: let's assume that a few thousand people in northern Finland begin to call themselves Thracians and revive the old language. You would absolutely justified in claiming these are not descended from the original Thracians; a break in the language, a different location and no continuity of any cultural trait. Hellenic culture and civilisation has been continuous for millennia AND on the very same territory. Yes people come and people go, Greeks from the past became Slavicised, Albanianised, Ottomanised, basically anything they wanted - outsiders married Greeks and bore children who called themselves Greek and so on, BUT this just means people have assimilated. It has never been the case that the language and culture was ever abandoned only to be picked up later by Illyrians and Slavic people. Greeks feature in every census taken throughout history and I doubt even the ancient Egyptians and Greeks were PURE in that their ancestors did not mix. I am sorry Ottomanist but this is a ridiculous declaration from you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also - as for a revival in nationalist spirit, well this is more to do with the way of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure a few people adopted Hellenic identity and maybe some Greeks chose something else; we know that the Orthodox-dominated powerful figures condemned non-Christian Greeks to abandoning their Greek past but this is far from supporting the claim that today's people are not "necessarily" descended from the ancient. What is "necessary"? People are or are not something. By identifying as German, you automatically inherit German history and everything attributed to it, it doesn't matter what your ancestors were. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've reported Ottomanist and the disruption he is causing at WP:AE. Not that it matters at this point, but for the record I even checked the sources he uses and they predictably state nothing of the kind (because no scholar worth his salt would write something like that). Athenean (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop claiming you've read the book:

Source 1 - Atsuko Ichijo, Gordana Uzelac, 'When Is the Nation?: Towards An Understanding of Theories Of Nationalism,' p. 182 explains very concisely:

"The western institutions transplanted into the newborn Greek state, although alien to the traditional Greek society of the early 19th century (…) official state discourse as well as that of intellecutals affirmed the importance of the 'ancient glorious past' in the conception of the modern Greek nation…the construction of Greek identity was completed through the integration of the byzantine period into the historic trajectory of the nation…the 'invention' of such a united and unique community was pursued throughout the 19th centiry through the state educational and cultural projects."

Source 2 - William Safran, 'The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion, and Politics,' p. 148, explains in more detail that:

"Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and relgions "

"Even though the 20th century construction of an exclusive ethno-national Greek identity legitimating the modern Greek state was relitively recent, religion, more specifically Eastern (Greek) Orthodoxy, was a contentious issue from the outset..."

"At the time of greek independence in 1829, the Greek nation was conceptualized as a resuscitated byzantium- a Christianized ottoman Empire - that would incorporate a multiplicity of religions, cultures and ethnicities. The premises of the Greek nation and of natioanlist ideology, which were contested among nationlist ideologues during the 18th century, were resolved only gradually…"

This is proof that you haven't even read the works you claim to have seen. I will revert the edit very soon unless you can bring another source to show that modern greeks are related to the ancient ones. Ottomanist (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist, if I see, in this article is a chapter 1.8 titled Modern (Greeks). There is a sentence as follows: ... While most Greeks today are descended from Greek-speaking Romioi (Roman) there are sizeable groups of ethnic Greeks who trace their descent to Aromanian-speaking Vlachs and Albanian-speaking Arvanites as well as Slavophones and Turkish-speaking Karamanlides.[97][98]... You can add your text somewhere there. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more than wishful interpretation of the sources. They don't go anywhere near supporting the tendentious wording "It should be noted however, that modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks". The passages quoted make no statement regarding the relatedness of modern Greeks to ancient Greeks. In fact, ancient Greece is hardly even mentioned. The only mention of it that I see is that the ancient past plays an important role in Greek identity, i.e. the exact opposite of what Ottomanist is claiming. There is a section already discussing the relationship between ancient and modern, the last thing we need is tendentiously worded POV-pushing in the lede that is based on a false interpretation of sources. Athenean (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ottomanist and the quotes are talking about two different things. The quotes Ottomanist offers are clearly about the construction of the modern [nationalist] identity. That's old news (since Elie Kedourie and many others): throughout Europe in the 18th/19th century that was a process that was going on everywhere. But there can be a self-conscious construction of "national identity" whether or not there was any lack of "relatedness" to the past. There's nothing in those quotes which comments on that. Apart from that, the other problem with Ottomanist's edit is what is meant by "modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks"? Genetically? Culturally? Linguistically? Geographically? It's actually pretty meaningless as it is. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the citation made fun reading and is certainly music to the ears of anti-Greeks, but it is selective and evidently contrived to bring down a modern nation on scanty negligible pretences. Assimilations have occurred all through history, no doubt even the antique nations had mixed with outsiders whilst many abandoned their own nation to join another. What the source fails to explain is how Hellenic culture, language and tradition survived all those millennia, was never abandoned in that it had to be revived, people had been identifying as Greek throughout the transitional period, and suddenly we have pseudo-Greeks? Really? Then which people walking this Earth have the "real" ancient Greek seed? The Ukrainians? Half of the homogenous Brazilians? If so how did they end up where they did and how did these "new" non-Greeks successfully replace the old and all without a break in Hellenic identity? The claim is absurd. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't read the quotes as "anti-Greek" or could be used to support anything "anti-Greek". I think you may be reading too much into them. The same process was going on everywhere at that time. The quotes are focusing on the concept of the "nation-state" (any nation state) and the underlying ideology supporting the nation-state being new inventions - which they were. What was going on in Greece was "normal"! DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It was normal, revival of nationalism was the trend in the 19th century. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Read again "Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and religions.." - Greek nationalism was initially territorial - now we have the claim that everyone is 'Greek' which is absolute nonsense according to all scholars of nationalism (since Greek is taken as a sort of model of how a nation is constructed using myths, not based on 'true' ethnic continuity).

• There was no 'revival' of nationalism in the 19th century since nationalism originates in that century (some users are so missing the point it's unbelievable).
• This is historical fact which all modern scholars note. Again, this is not a place to publicise state propaganda. - Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More sources: Roderick Beaton, David Ricks, 'The Making of Modern Greece', p. 88

• "...The reinterpreted discourse of resurrent provided the traditional sections of society with a comforting matrix for coming to terms not only with the idea of insurrection but also with one of its prerequisites that uderpiness the agenda of the revolutionaries: the myth of Hellenic descent….

• "...for the people, instead, the reinterpreted discourse of resurrection furnished and ideological basis which fascilitated an acculturation between the myth of Hellenic descent that nationalists upheld and the sense of ..."

- Ottomanist (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The naive essentialist notion that "Greekness" is some sort of eternal, unchanging ideal through the centuries and that Greeks form an monolithic, unambiguous, and uniquely defined unit regardless of time and place is clearly nonsense suitable at best for little children parading in Evzone costumes in schoolyards. Greekness has meant different things at different times and places to different people: there are continuities and discontinuities, there are revivals and there are renunciations; there are splits and there are mergers; and there are different kinds of Greekness. On that, I think, I agree with you, Ottomanist.

On the other hand, to reduce the rich complexity of all this to the crude and imprecise statement that "...the ancient Greeks are not necessarily related to the modern-day Greeks" is just silly. What do the weasel words "not necessarily" mean? What does "related" mean? (linguistically? genetically? geographically? politically?) As for "such a linkage was only made during the age of Nationalism in the early 19th century", that is simply incorrect. "Linkages" between ancient and modern Greeks/Greece/Greek have been made many times, at many times, e.g. by Gemistus Pletho. They are not all the same; Plethon, Ypsilantis, Korais, et al., each had very different conceptions of Greekness and the connection between ancient and modern.

The current article section Identity, Modern and Ancient is embarrassingly simplistic and should be improved, using good-quality modern scholarship, not tendentious cherry-picking. See for example Paschalis M. Kitromilides's article "On the intellectual content of Greek nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the Great Idea" [6] which carefully deconstructs the way 19th-century writers appropriated Byzantine history to create a modern narrative. And that is just one aspect of the story. --Macrakis (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The problematic behavior by Ottomanist continues. This wording [7] in addition to being tendentious and unencyclopedic ("However...complicated affair"), is nowhere to be found among sources and as such is WP:OR. The point about Greece being inhabited by diverse ethnic groups is repeated immediately below. This source [8] is completely misquoted, in intellectually dishonest fashion. It doesn't go anywhere near saying that it was only during the 19th century that the ancient past was revived. Far from it in fact. Rather, all it states is that the ancient past played an important part in the nation-building in the 19th century. There are many examples of the ancient past being glorified in previous episodes of Greek history, e.g. by Gemistus Pletho in the 15-16 centuries, and even earlier during the Byzantine era. This source [9] is also misused. The meaning of "Myth of Hellenic descent" in this source has nothing to do with the territorial definition of the Greek nation mentioned by the source in the preceding sentence. This is WP:SYNTHing. Moreover, that the author use the wording "myth of Hellenic descent]] does not mean that they believe that the modern Greeks do not descend in the least from the inhabitants of ancient Greece. Ottomanist misunderstands or misuses the source to try to imply a complete lack of demographic continuity between ancient and modern Greeks, which I suspect has been his goal all along. Athenean (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some are becoming increasingly guilty of ORin. The sources are very clear. Greece came to be inhabited by many ethnic, religious groups during the long rule of the Ottomans. During the 19th century nationalists began contracting a myth of common descent to bind together these different groups. The sources above show this very, very clearly. Moreover, Kitromilides is a brilliant source and in no way has he (a Greek!) been misused. As time passes, I will incorporate his reputable, scholarly accounts into more of the article. - Ottomanist (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a myth of common descent. Clearly you or and your trusted authors have no idea about what ethnicity is. One is Greek, Albanian, Kurdish or Danish on account of the fact that he declares this to be his ethnic group. It cannot be denied just because both his parents may have been Iraqi-Arab - because they too would only be Arab on account that that is how they declare. The bloodline of an individual is not the same thing as the pedigree of an actual nation. When you assimilate, you leave behind the old and you adopt the new. All the sources testify is that many people adopted Greek ethnicity in the 19th century, what about the those already Greek? Do the sources deny that these people existed? Of course not. So over time, the people mix and soon their past is forgotten. I know many patriotic Greeks (with some of my family living in Bitola, I often go to Florina when local), they are all Greek through and through but not one of them claims only to be descended from Hellenic stock. To confirm this, he would first have to trace his ancestry, but what would the point be? If he discovered that one double-great grandparent was Bulgarian but chose Greek ethnicity, should he now consider himself less Greek? Is that why his ancestor assimilated? Just so that generations down someone reverts to former ethnic status? The information on the sources is not sufficient to make a claim "today's Greeks are not descended from ancient". If it were the case however that Greeks became assimilated by surrounding nations with the last speaker perishing back in the 12th century, a fate similar to many great nations to have existed in the region (eg. Avars, Thracians, etc.), and then from 1784 a group of Albanian-speaking communities revive the old Greek culture based on where they were living then you would be 100% justified in claiming the modern do not descend from the old because you would have verification that the modern Greeks descended from Albanian dissidents whilst the ancient were absent from 1160. But this is not the case is it? Hellenic culture has at all times been present. A Greek community has always thrived so there has been something there for newcomers to embrace, and upon doing so, they adopt a Greek past - because a national history is the property of the entire nation. If you support a football team, you'd still say "we won that trophy 100 years ago" even though you mightn't have been around yourself. So any modern Greek can feel comfortable that he has some descent in the ancient. And anyway, if Greeks are subject to a "common descent myth", can you name a modern ethnic group whose members are pure and have never assimilated outsiders? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, and we can continue this discussion based on our views on my talk page, but the sources say otherwise. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If they do then they are unreliable because the explanation I have given above covers everything. I doubt they actually do "say otherwise", they probably give what I told you but in different words and you've taken a different vantage point. Instead of realising that people assimilated, you took the angle of modern Greeks who "may or may not" have full Greek descent. And I did say, none of the claims this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@ macrakis, thanks for your insightful words. @Athenian, these ad hominem attacks must cease, please concentrate on the content not the user. I will edit this page to take in all that has been said soon, - Ottomanist (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic group versus nation

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who peruses the article that it discusses the ethnic group known as Greeks, not citizens of Greece (i.e. the Greek nation). This is why the Turks of Western Thrace are never mentioned in the article. This is because they consider themselves ethnic Turks, and are not considered as ethnic Greeks by anyone. The editor who added "Islam" to the infobox had in mind Greek Muslims. While they are Greek by ethnicity, they have largely assimilated into their respective societies (mostly Turkish) and no longer consider themselves ethnic Greeks, nor are they considered as such by other ethnic Greeks. Athenean (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC);

I posted on your talk, so please ignore. I suppose the first point is almost every European "peoples" article is explicitly about the ethnicity & the citizenship. Why would this article take such a narrowly different tack? Secondly, it seems particularly strange for here since the Greek govt. doesn't recognise Turks of Western Thrace as a Turkish ethnic minority. From that article: "Since 1983, the Greek government refers to the Turkish community as Greek Muslims or Hellenic Muslims, and does not recognise a separate Turkish minority in Western Thrace.[2]"

This is very puzzling. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not almost every article on European "peoples" is both about ethnicity and citizenship. Some, such as Irish people, Russians and Italians are explicitly about the ethnic group. Others, such as Serbs and Norwegians, are about the ethnic group but misuse the term "nation". Yet others, such as Spanish people, French people, are indeed both about the ethnic group and the nation. If you ask me, the situation is an intractable mess. There is no consistency across these articles, and it is pointless to look for it. What matters here is that the way this article was written, it is exclusively about the ethnic group known as Greeks. Greek citizens of non-Greek ethnicity are prominently discussed in Greece, the article on the Greek nation. Given the division-of-content between these articles, I think it would be ludicrous to include Turks of Western Thrace here, not to mention that it would duplicate the content found in Greece. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Italians actually follows the ethnic group & citizenship model. I think there is a substantial majority of the European articles that do this. I don't see the logic of the narrower definition given that it is contrary to the normal English language usage of the word i.e. it would always have a dual meaning of X ethnicity and X citizenship. Howsoever, it's obviously the consensus here as the article is more or less written in that way (although I notice you had to excise "nation"!) and I accept that.

As for "Greek Muslims", the Turks of Western Thrace article has decently sourced statements that the Greek government considers them as Greeks and explicitly not ethnic Turks. It seems very strange to me that there shouldn't be commentary on this in this article i.e. recognition that this is the Greek government position but that this is incorrect for XYZ reasons - supported by reliable sources of course. It seems a noteworthy point for this article in itself.

On duplication: I don't see unnecessary duplication in say France and French people with regard to ethnic minorities, so it shouldn't be a problem here.

DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I have see what you guys have written, but I think that saying they are assimilated is something you don't really know, but you guess. Greek Muslims have been a historical and relatively large group, not a recent immigrant group or recent converts like in western Europe. And you suppose they are assimilated, well then again I could suppose that, on the basis of DNA studies, Turks in western/northern Anatolia and eastern Thrace are Turkicized Muslims of Greek ancestry, which would outnumber the total number of "ethnic" (identifying) Greeks in the world combined. But they are not included in the Greek Muslims count because they now belong to another identity (Turks), but the "ethnic" Greek Muslims are so because they are specifically Greek identifying (many, if not most, times still speaking Greek). So they are, by all counts, part of Greek people in that they have kept their identity. Now I am not saying you are like this, Athenean, but sometimes I think certain strongly Orthodox Christian groups (Greeks, Armenians, etc.) dislike having to say there are Muslims within their ethnicity/identity. For example, I tried to add the mention of Islam as being practiced by Armenian-speaking "mostly Hamsheni Armenians only" on the Armenians article, yet this was treated as "vandalism" or just outright rejected by Armenian editors there. So I think, in my humble opinion, that there is some anti-Islam sentiment governing the non-inclusion of historic and numerically significant Muslims within these ethnicities.--Fernirm (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about Greek Muslims. My point was about Turks of Western Thrace. I haven't looked at the sources in Greek Muslims. If the sources support the contention that their Greek ethnic identity has been maintained and they have not been assimilated, then I can't see why they would not be included in this article.

As for the Turks of Western Thrace, in this sort of potentially sensitive area I find it always best to stick closely to what the reliable sources say (whatever one thinks of them personally) rather than go on personal knowledge. (Well I suppose that's what we're always supposed to do, but it's particularly important here). My starting point is that reliable sources say that the group covered by the article Turks of Western Thrace are not regarded by the Greek government as ethnic Turks but as Greeks who happen to be Muslim. No one seems to challenge that bare fact so I think there should be some recognition of this in this article, but I wouldn't want to go beyond that narrow formulation i.e. it is simply the Greek government's position. If there are reliable sources to say that this is a position for political reasons and, in effect, no one really thinks that, (including the self-identification of the group themselves) then that should be said as well. That's all. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Indus Valley?

There are still approximately 100,000 Athenians that fled during ancient times living the mountainous areas between Afghanistan and India. None of the Helleno-Indus people or descendants of the Seleucid are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.47 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Diaspora

Some countries are not listed in the global diaspora, most notably Eygpt and Iran. Perhaps the data cannot be obtained but the populations left in Africa on the whole should be researched and explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.47 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Languages

In the section Modern Greeks in this article is clarification with added sources: While most Greeks today are descended from Greek-speaking Romioi there are sizeable groups of ethnic Greeks who trace their descent to Aromanian-speaking Vlachs and Albanian-speaking Arvanites as well as Slavophones and Turkish-speaking Karamanlides.[97][98] Jingiby (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, far more Greeks today speak English, French, German and Russian that any of those languages, all of which are in rapid decline among Greeks. Athenean (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but non of them is mother-tongue to a part of the native Greeks in contrast of the mentioned above Aromanian, Arvanitika, Slavic and Turkish. Jingiby (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Euclid

How come Euclid is not in the pictures gallary of the Greek in the infobox? He is the father of geometry. He is absolute a very significant figure. And he indeed is more significant than some of figures in the gallary right now. I suggest we need to remove one of the figure in the gallary in the infobox and put Euclid in.65.128.190.136 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)