Talk:Greece

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

In the language area the FYROM language is called <<Makedonian>>. UNBELIEVABLE LIE !!!

This is f*cking unbelievable. Greece has never recognised the FYROM language as <<Makedonian>>. Not even all countries in the world has recognised FYROM as <<Republic of Makedonia>> to start with. This is a provocation for most of the cool Greeks and a HUGE HISTORICAL LIE to write that minorities in north Greece speak <<Makedonian>>(meaning the FYROM language) especially in a Greece related article !! The citizens of FYROM have no historical connection with Ancient Makedonia and with Alexander the Great. THEY ARE LIARS !!!

In the below links you will find information of why we Greeks we will never recognise these Slavic falsifiers as <<Makedonians>>

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/02/09/an-essay-about-macedonia/

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/02/11/the-greeks-of-macedonia-in-slavic-sources/

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2008/09/10/pseudomacedonians-the-fallacy-of-their-cause-by-vasil-gligorov/

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2008/09/10/a-thesis-on-fyromian-denial-syndrom/

Also when i try to edit it some administrator\administrators start to make the usual threats that they will block my account for messing with their Pseudomakedonian language...They love having this LIE in the Greek wikipedia page i guess grrrrrrrrr --SotosfromGreece (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Constitutional Name is ignored

It should be noted clearly in the article that in English and several other languages the constitutional name of the country is ignored since it's the Hellenic Republic and Hellas. This is relevant to the recent arguments by FYROM on "teh evil" Greece not letting them use their constitutional name "as Greece does". --Leladax (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since certain individuals are obsessed with my edits and follow them around wikipedia like leeches, let me clarify I was specifically referring to extremist nationalist propaganda by FYROM circulating the past few days. In it, a prominent "argument" is that Greece is called by its "constitutional name" while it doesn't let others - "the nazi Greece" - to use their own. This is ridiculous since virtually no country in the world in their language calls Ellas ..Hellas. I don't know about you but I call England Anglia in my language, not Gris. --Leladax (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article starts: Greece [ˈgriːs]^ⓘ (Greek: Ελλάδα, Elláda, IPA: [ɛˈlaða], or Ελλάς, Ellás, [ɛˈlas]), officially the Hellenic Republic ...

What more do you want? And stop obsessing about teh evil FYROM. No, it's not relevant in the least. Relevant policies are WP:USEENGLISH and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not obsessing like some others here. I simply mentioned the obvious. If you're incapable of discussing like a human being keep out. --Leladax (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance here, I'm afraid. Almost no country is called by its "constitutional name" here on Wikipedia. It's France instead of "République française", it's Germany instead of "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", it's Finland instead of "Suomen tasavalta" or "Republiken Finland". It's Sweden instead of "Konungariket Sverige", it's Hungary instead of "Magyar Köztársaság" and so on. In other words, there's no difference in this respect between Greece and virtually every other country in the world. JdeJ (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You fail to also not follow my edits around wikipedia. Don't obsess. --Leladax (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Leladax, I have been editing articles related to Greece and Macedonia for over a year and have them on my watchlist whereas you just arrived here, so if anything, it would be you who follow me. Believe me, you would do the causes you're trying to advance much good if you would only be able to control your temper a bit. As it is, your outbursts only serve to undermine your credibility with your accusations of "extreme nationalism" and "obsessing" at anyone who doesn't share your opinion. Try to control yourself and act civil, and I can assure you that you will stand to gain from it and have a much larger chance of reaching your objectives. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but I'd also suggest the same to you. Passive aggressiveness shows even through typing sometimes; I don't think you meant to call me "Dear". --Leladax (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He has a point though.The constitutional name is Hellenic Republic or simply Hellas.These words aren't just a phonetical translation (as naming Armenia Hayastan would be f.ex.) but exist in the english language and have a meaning.Iran used to be Persia in English (among other languages) but it's Iran now.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Economy Section

This is not a fan site for Greece. The description of the Greek economy is at total variance with the facts. The claim is that Greece is some kind of prosperous industrial state when in fact it is the second-poorest country in the EU. 40% of the GDP is in the public sector, i.e. the economy is driven by government spending. The so-called "Greek Economic Miracle" was due to huge injections of outside and government money ahead of the Olympics. Due to local incompetence, most of the infrastructure improvements (like the airport) had to be taken over by foreigners, mainly the Germans. This created a showcase about as authentic as the facade the Chinese have constructed for their Olympics.

Here are two reliable sources:

From the CIA Factbook:

• Greece has a capitalist economy with the public sector accounting for about 40% of GDP and with per capita GDP at least 75% of the leading euro-zone economies. Tourism provides 15% of GDP. Immigrants make up nearly one-fifth of the work force, mainly in agricultural and unskilled jobs. Greece is a major beneficiary of EU aid, equal to about 3.3% of annual GDP. The Greek economy grew by nearly 4.0% per year between 2003 and 2007, due partly to infrastructural spending related to the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, and in part to an increased availability of credit, which has sustained record levels of consumer spending. Greece violated the EU's Growth and Stability Pact budget deficit criteria of no more than 3% of GDP from 2001 to 2006, but finally met that criteria in 2007. Public debt, inflation, and unemployment are above the euro-zone average, but are falling. The Greek Government continues to grapple with cutting government spending, reducing the size of the public sector, and reforming the labor and pension systems, in the face of often vocal opposition from the country's powerful labor unions and the general public. The economy remains an important domestic political issue in Greece and, while the ruling New Democracy government has had some success in improving economic growth and reducing the budget deficit, Athens faces long-term challenges in its effort to continue its economic reforms, especially social security reform and privatization. [1]

From Greeka.com (2004 figures but things don't turn around that fast):

• Even if the economy of Greece has improved in recent years due to the tight policy before and after EU’s single currency and the preparation for the Olympic Games of 2004, Greece is one of the poorest countries of the European Union with the second-to-lowest average income.

• Its Greece economy improvement is: a budget deficit below 1% of GDP and an inflation which fell from 20% to 3.1% from 1990 and 2000.

• Nevertheless, the reconstruction of the economy and the reduction of unemployment (11.3%) are the major challenges of the country.
• Characteristics: Greece has a mixed capitalistic economy with a large public sector that accounts about half of GDP and that is blamed for the slow economic growth...

• It is an agricultural country (with agricultural products such as wheat, corn, barley, sugar beets, olives, tomatoes, tobacco, potatoes, beef, dairy products and wine) with 20 % of the workforce employed in this sector. 59 % of the workforce is employed in the sector of services and the 21 % in the sector of industry (food and tobacco processing, textiles, chemicals, metal products, mining and petroleum) and construction. Even if Greece is an agricultural country, the agricultural contribution to the economy is only of 15 %.

• The industry which contributes the most to the economy is the tourism industry and the shipping. Greece welcomes every year a number of tourists greater than the country’s total population and its shipping sector is the most important in the world.

• Exportations: Greece exports total 12.5 billion dollars of manufactured goods, fuels, food and beverages to countries such as Germany, Italy, UK, France and the US.

• Importations: The imports of the country are higher (around 28 billion dollars); they consist in manufactured goods, foodstuffs, fuels and chemicals. Its imports partners are Italy, Germany, France, UK, Netherlands and US.

• External Debt: Its external debts are over 42 billion dollars and the country has an economic aid from the EU of more than 5.5 billion dollars. [2]

Considering the contentious nature of some of the discussions (the inane broohaha over Macedonia shows where priorities lie), I'm afraid that trying to correct the section's nonsense would end up in a revert war, so I leave it to heartier souls than I to tackle the issue. J M Rice (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

pf, the CIA factbook, if you read the CIA factbook you never find "hopeful" descriptions. Try the USA entry. It ends with a big paragraph listing how USA is a drug trafficking paradise (seriously, do they have any country that isn't a drug trafficking paradise listed). Apotetios (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

J M Rice, I think you should educate yourself first before talking. You made 2 mistakes even in your first sentence. First of all the Greece article is indeed not a fan site. Second of all, Greece is NOT the second poorest country in the EU. Actually if you had educated yourself, you would know that since 2004 other much much poorer countries have joined the EU. But even if they hadnt joined, Greece is on par, in terms of GDP per capita, with countries such as Spain or Italy. According to the latest Eurostat data, GDP per capita for Greece is approx 100% of the EU average. So how the hell could Greece be the second poorest country? Also, you would know, that indeed Greece is a prosperous industrial country, aka developed, with the 24th highest HDI and a quality of life index higher than countries such as Belgium or UK. Also, I dont know how or why you believe Greeka.com site is reliable (!!) but its loaded with inaccuracies. Plus things DO change in 4 years time! Obviously you have not a single clue about Greece or economics, so I would strongly recommened you educate yourself, from reliable sources such as IMF, World Bank, Eurostat, Economist and then come back and talk about Greek economy. Last but not least, its good to hear from you that you DONT intent to correct the section. It would have been a massacre.77.83.23.155 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, somebody has messed up the Economy section, and it should be fixed to its previous (say, early July) version. The "myths" about Greece's economy often start from us Greeks who rarely look at the numbers and are prone to use street talk (like the source from a Mega channel program about "some" wages!). The present status of Greece is defined by its (high) ranking in terms of prosperity and any other scientific data, not calculated arguments. Skartsis (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

2 thinks also: the "Greek economic miracle" was from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s what could be the connection with 1906 olympic games, or ever worse 2004 games???? ALSO why everyone on this site seems so eager to use CIA's resuls? i will never understand it... has anyone really considered that CIA's results could be bogus? for god's sake CIA is an intelligence agency! Soathana (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it, but you are not right. Greece IS one of the poorest contries in the EU. Infact they owe more than their GNP of a year according to newest official documents from the ECB(European central bank). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilieIA (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New FIBA rankings

The new FIBA rankings are out (after Olympics 2008 tournament). Greece in now no 4. The article needs to be updated because in the sports section it shows No 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.23.155 (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

date audit

There was a mixture of US and international formats; I've made all international. Please buzz me it there are objections. Tony (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece situates partially in Asia

The islands of Greece on the coast of Asia minor, i.e. the Greek North Aegean Islands (excluding Saint Eustratius and Lemnos) and the Dodecanese Islands situate in Asia, look at the map in the image Continental Shelf Border.PNG.
--PKo (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The borders of Europe (or any other continent) do not follow state borders or is somebody claiming at that e. g. Turkish part of Thrace situates in Asia?

What is the source that Bozcaada/Tenedos island is in Asia, but Symi as if in Europe? The owner of islands does not explain it, look at for example the Spain-owned Canary Islands (in Africa) and also the Italy-owned Pantelleria and Pelagie Islands (in Africa).

--PKo (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in terms of geography. However, islands like these are considered to belong to the continent their country belongs. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All islands in the Aegean sea (including Imbros and Tenedos) are considered part of Europe, regardless of their position on the continental shelf. Only Cyprus is considered part of Asia (Minor), although in most cases it's also included in the boundaries of Europe. Walnutjk (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the source to that? If You do not show it, Your edit is original research and merely motivated by Your own point of view.

--PKo (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you present any decent reference, apart from this pesky map? If not, this absurd reference has to go. Walnutjk (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:550px-Greece linguistic minoritiesb copy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:550px-Greece linguistic minoritiesb copy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dimorsitanos (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic minority map

I have seen that there have been complaints from unregistered users concerning the linguistic minority map in the article. Without fully agreeing with their points, I would like to point out some issues concerning this map, most of all its note: Greek is the dominant language throughout Greece; inclusion in a non-Greek language zone does not necessarily imply that the relevant minority language is still spoken there, or that its speakers consider themselves an ethnic minority:

1. Greek is the dominant language throughout Greece: then why in Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Continental Greece and the Peloponnese, non-Greek languages are represended without stripes to indicate that Greek is also spoken there?

2. inclusion in a non-Greek language zone does not necessarily imply that the relevant minority language is still spoken there: then, what's the point of the map? To show which languages had been spoken in Greece in the past? How about creating a map of Poland with half of the country being German-speaking and adding a similar note under it? Then we could include it in that article, but everyone will say (especially the Poles) that it is crap. Or maybe a map of Turkey being fully Greek-speaking...

3. does not necessarilly imply...that its speakers consider themselves an ethnic minority: this may lead some readers to believe that these speakers may consider themselves an ethnic minority. Despite numerous efforts of the Arvanites and Aromanians (especially) that they are not an ethnic minority, Wikipedia opens a window to be considered so...

Individually per minority language and region:

1. Pomak is a Bulgarian dialect, thus it should not be presented here as a separate language, unless it implies an ethnic minority (note: the map is supposed to be a linguistic one).

2. Pomak is not only spoken along the border with Bulgaria, but further deep inside Thrace, and definately in Rhodope Prefecture, where the creator places only Turkish.

3. Under the term "Slavic" there shouldn't only be included Bulgarian and "Macedonian", but also a term named "Dopia", as the speakers of these dialects call them. If the people of FYROM want to consider their language independent from Bulgarian, and if they have the right to do so (although the vast majority of linguists say/have always said they just speak Bulgarian), noone has the right to deny a separate linguistic identity for the Slavophone Greeks. Either call all of them Bulgarian (as they linguistically are) or use distinct names for all of them.

4. Aromanian was traditionally spoken in a wider area. Further south of the Pindus rage of mountains, further western in Epirus, inside Ioannina Prefecture and for sure in northern Boeotia. Also deeper in West Macedonia, in and around Kozani. Note that the Aromanians have historically (traditionally, if you prefer) bilingual.

5. Albanian was not spoken in Preveza Prefecture nor south of Florina. Perhaps west of Florina, along the border would be more accurate, since we are referring to the past.

6. Attica and much of the Peloponnese are presented as been Arvanitika speaking. This was never the case. Minorities did exist in much smaller scale. Modern standard Greek evolved from the Peloponnesian and Athenean dialects. How could these dialects exist, if this map says that the people in those regions did not speak Greek? It's like saying that Tuscany was not Italian speaking. So, where did standard Italian evolved from?

7. The map gives far more credit to the 2,000 Turks of the Dodecanese. They form less than 1% of the Prefecture's population, yet they are shown as inportant communities on the 2 largest islands. How about creating a linguistic map of Turkey with 3 dots for Greek speaking populations, one each on Imbros and Tenedos, and one there... just where Constantinople is... While that map remain in Turkey's article, which has also been a feautured one?

8. Ladino is represended correctly. However, Armenian, a recognised minority and a community comparable in history with the Jewish one, is missing. So is the Roma language although it has more speakers than Meglenitic or "Macedonian".

Thus, I wonder if the map's creation's aim was to illustrate the minority languages of Greece and the areas they are spoken, or it had another aim (without accusing the uploader, of course). To sum up: 1. Half of Greece appears to be "traditionally" non-Greek speaking, which is false. 2. Various mistakes concerning the names and the spead of each language, while others are not represented at all. 3. A wrong map, to conclude with, for this article. Correct it and move it in a history section about minorities for it does not fit here. --Hectorian (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Hectorian, but most of the points you raise have been discussed ad nauseam. I'm literally sick of defending this map against the sock attacks, and all the substantial issues were conclusively discussed right in the beginning. No further comments from me here and now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have expained in detail why I believe this map does not belong here, let alone that it is wrong. I did not find answers on my questions. I thought it would be better to move it here but I saw it's already there. It is also present here and here, id est (surprisingly?), the articles about Greece that our northern neighbours want to be included in. I wonder why are you defending the map so much... Anyway, its place is here or a new article named History of the minorities in Greece. I reserve my right to move the map there, unless someone is willing to provide clear reasons not to. --Hectorian (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a section titled "minorities". The map shows where these minorities are. It is obviously pertinent to this article, just as it is to the main article Minorities in Greece. The one thing that needs fixing is the distribution of Aromanian; there's a better source map for that somewhere that could be used. If it wasn't for the permanent semi-vandalistic POV onslaught of which yours is just the latest part, who knows, I might even get around doing it some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong, and that's exactly my point: The map shows approximately where these minorities were. This is why it belongs in an article about the history of Greece. Approximately because there are mistakes (?) concerning the distribution of almost all the minority languages, and not only Aromanian. Just so you know, I am neither vandalising nor semi-vandalising any article. I made no edit in the article yet (but reserved my right to do so...). The map is also POVish for the thing I have expained above: it mentions "Macedonian" and Bulgarian and not Dopia or just Slavic, as the speakers call their language (the 20,000 speakers, although the highlighted area has more than 700,000!); even the status of "Macedonian" as a separate language is in dispute and here it is placed 1st and above all! Now who is POVish? Me or the map? --Hectorian (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the sources cited. The areas shown are those where research in the 1990s found minorities still in existence. Of course many of these are/were small minorities and not highly visible (language used only by the older generation and only at home and all that.) Your objection about Arvanitic shows how little you've read up on the issue. All the relevant literature agrees that virtually the whole of Attica was solidly Albanophone, more or less exclusively so until the 19th century except two or three small Greek-speaking enclaves, one of them the center of the town of Athens. (By the way, the local "Old Athenian" Greek dialect was not the input to present-day standard Modern Greek either.) About the Macedonian naming issues, no further comment. I've had enough of the ridiculous shenanigans of the Greek POV crowd with their ideological obsessions. If you have factual corrections about the precise locations of this or that group, feel free to note them somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)..

I see no maps in the second source. The fact that a few elderly speakers may exist in an area does not justify painting a whole area in the colours of a minority. The first source [3] does have a map: I see no Pomak language, no Albanian in Epirus, no Turkish in Kos, different distribution of Turkish in Xanthi Prefecture, and, guess what, no "Macedonian", but Slavic! And Euromosaic lists Le (slavo)macédonien / bulgare en Grèce (was that (slavo) lost in copy-paste?). Perhaps you have read different sources about the distribution of Arvanitika, than I have. I have written above about the precise locations of the languages (I repeat: the locations they used to be spoken). As for the Greek POV crowd I will just say it takes two to tango. As for the our ideological obsessions, better not to comment, cause if I were about to cite the others' ideological obsessions I would need more than a 100 kb page of Wikipedia. --Hectorian (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Map removal

I am going to remove the linguistic minority map for reasons I have expained above, yet, I feel obliged to explain in detail again (in order to avoid misunderstanding and misjudgement for this action of mine):

1. The description of the map is: Areas with traditional presence of linguistic minorities in Greece (Arvanitika, Albanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Macedonian Slavic, Pomak Bulgarian, Turkish, Ladino). There is no reason to have a map about the history of the linguistic minorities of Greece, in Greece's main page. Its place should be in a historical article, if it did not have so many mistakes in it.

2.Under the article we read: Greek is the dominant language throughout Greece. Yet, in Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Continental Greece and the Peloponnese, non-Greek languages are represended without stripes to indicate that Greek is also spoken there.

3. Also we are informed that: inclusion in a non-Greek language zone does not necessarily imply that the relevant minority language is still spoken there. Again, the map is supposed to be about history, so it has no place there.

4. Again we can read that the map: does not necessarilly imply...that its speakers consider themselves an ethnic minority; this may lead some readers to believe that these speakers may consider themselves an ethnic minority. Despite numerous efforts of the Arvanites and Aromanians (especially) that they are not an ethnic minority, Wikipedia opens a window to be considered so...

5. The map is supposed to be based on data from ethnologue [4]. ethnologue.com does not show any Pomak language, since it is a dialect of Bulgarian; this map does although it is supposed to be on linguistic, not ethnic or religious minorities. ethnologue.com does not show "Macedonian", but simply Slavic. ethnologue.com shows different distribution for Aromanian (it is not shown to be spoken in the Larisa or Magnesia Prefectures) and leaves a much larger part of Attica for Greek, than this map does. Also, the distribution of Turkish is different: in the southern (not northern) part of Xanthi Prefecture and no mentioning in Kos. Also, Albanian is not shown in Epirus.

6. Another source for the map is supposed to be Euromosaic. Euromosaic lists Le (slavo)macédonien / bulgare en Grèce, not Slavic ("Macedonian"/Bulgarian).

Individually per minority language:

1. Pomak is a Bulgarian dialect, thus it should not be presented here as a separate language, unless it implies an ethnic minority (note: the map is supposed to be a linguistic one). Also, it is not only spoken along the border with Bulgaria, but further deep inside Thrace, and for sure in Rhodope Prefecture, where the creator places only Turkish.

2. Under the term "Slavic" there shouldn't only be included Bulgarian and "Macedonian", but also a term named "Dopia", as the speakers of these dialects call them. Linguistically these dialects have been identified as Bulgarian. But if political concepts are about to be adopted, a separate linguistic identity for the Slavophone Greeks shall be presented, in accordance of what themselves and the Greek state claim. Also, ethnologue.com does not show Slavic in the Serres Prefecture nor does it show Slavic expanding as east as Lake Volvi, as this map does.

3. Aromanian was traditionally spoken in a wider area. Further south of the Pindus rage of mountains, further western in Epirus, inside Ioannina Prefecture and for sure in northern Boeotia. Also deeper in West Macedonia, in and around Kozani. Note 1: the scaterred villages of Pindus mountains are largely uninhabited for most of the year. Note 2: Aromanians have traditionally been bilingual, so Aromanian is only the half part of their linguistic identity, that this map tries to portray as sole.

4. Attica and much of the Peloponnese are presented as been Arvanitika speaking. The distribution of Arvanitika was smaller.

5. The map gives far more credit to the 2,000 Turks of the Dodecanese. They form less than 1% of the Prefecture's population, yet they are shown as inportant communities on the 2 largest islands.

6. Ladino is represended correctly. However, Armenian, a recognised minority and a community comparable in history with the Jewish one, is missing. So is the Roma language although it has more speakers than Meglenitic or "Macedonian".

Evidence of POV-pushing on this map:

1. Although the source map in ethnologue.com presents Greece's northern neighbour as "F.Y.R. Macedonia", the creator of the map prefers to call it "Rep. of Macedonia".

2. Although Euromosaic calls the Slavic dialects Le (slavo)macédonien/ bulgare, the creator chooses to ommit (slavo), even though it was just in parenthesis.

3. In order to be in accordance with FYROM's official policy, there is a disassociation of the Slavic spoken in Thrace (which is baptised Pomak language-such article does not of course exist) from the Slavic spoken in Macedonia, although it is the same language. Note: the official policy of FYROM is to claim the Slavophones of Greek Macedonia as "Macedonians", not the Slavophones of Greek Thrace.

4. It seems like the creator used several maps as sources, and from each used the maximum extend for ethnic groups he favours (specifically the "Macedonians"). Without taking into account that:

a. these data refer largely to the past.

b. these linguistic groups do not self identify as "Macedonian"-speaking, but rather as Dopia or simply Slavic.

c. the position of the Greek state is different, and at least it should be mentioned (even the position of FYROM is illustrated on the map in the facts explained above in detail).

d. . the very status of the "Macedonian" language as separate from Bulgarian is in dispute (see Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language and many more).

A similar map was deleted [5]. Yet, the map returns again and again with no worth-noting corrections, based continually on this map. If the map is about to return, it should be corrected and cleared of POV. If it is about to be moved in a historical article, similar work has to be done. --Hectorian (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good arguments, although initially I oposed removing the map, I think that point No.1 is correct and this map should be somewhere in the history of Greece, not in the main article. However, I'm not sure I agree with the bit about name of Republic of Makedonia, and don't agree at all with the POV that somehow people who speak other languages are not minorities (by definition, "minorities" are those who are in minority, if you speak a language that is not spoken by the majority you are in minority, and the rest is the majority, there's no way around that), I've haven't heard of this idea of people speaking other languages who are a "non-minority" this is probably an idea unique to Greece. But who knows, maybe minority means something else in Greek. man with one red shoe (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The term has very negative connotations in Greece; Greek people are generally allergic to it in quite an irrational way. For them, "minority" seems to mean a group that is (a) oppressed by the state, and/or (b) illoyal to the state. There are in fact recurrent testimonials in the literature about members of these minority groups reacting very negatively against the term. What makes it even more difficult is the Greek language doesn't normally distinguish between "ethnic" and "national", it's the same word. Needless to say, we can't take these ideological hypersensitivities into account in an English-speaking encyclopedia for an international public. – The "Pomak" label can be discussed, of course; note that the legend identifies the whole Slavic continuum as "Macedonian/Bulgarian" (following general usage in the Anglophone literature), and "Pomak" is only used as an additional regional identifier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant the distinction between ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities. The present members of the linguistic minorities of Greece (in far less than the area depicted on the map) are indeed minorities, in the linguistic sense. Arvanites and Aromanians reject any reference for them being an ethnic minority. Turks in Thrace are linguistic, religious and ethnic minority. The vast majority of Slavophones profess a Greek ethnic identity and are Orthodox, thus they are only a linguistic minority. I hope I've cleared things up.

Fut.Perf. you did not comment about the map being moved to a historical section. We have the terms: εθνικότητα, ιθαγένεια, ομογενής, Έλληνας πολίτης, and far more to denote the distinctions that you mean. As a person who knows Greek, don't say that Greek lacks these terms. --Hectorian (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The differences between linguistic and ethnic group are treated in the text, or should be. If you find the caption problematic, change the caption. I can tell you that the wording you have apparently taken issue with was all the result of Greek editors adding disclaimers upon disclaimers to it, all with the intent of softening the oh-so-horrible implication that Greece might have minorities, but apparently every such disclaimer only gives rise to the need for yet more. The original caption describing what the map was supposed to do was short and crisp and unambiguous: "areas with significant traditional presence of minority languages". Not more and not less. – As for "historical", no, that's not what the map does. It is meant to accompany the text that describes the present existence of these groups, and it answers to the question of where they are. This is where the minorities were found as recently as two decades ago, according to the literature. If you have better data, bring it on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption became problematic because the map itself is. Even from the historical point of view, I have listed the mistakes above, for all the minorities as a whole and for each of them separately. In at least one case (the Meglenetic) I have told in your talk something youself have said before: you used data from a 1925 Romanian map; this one. If you really believe that the Greeks are as "alergic" to the term minority as you say, allow me to ask why are you so obsessed and see minorities in places they do not exist? --Hectorian (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Greeks are allergic to the term minority. That's pretty much a fact. Why would people feel offended by the term if it didn't have negative connotations in Greek? man with one red shoe (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, if you have data indicating Meglenitic is in a different place today than it was in 1925, bring it on. If and when I rework this map, I'll use Image:South-Balkan-Romance-languages.png as a model for Aromanian; it seems to agree on Meglenite and is certainly better about the rest. That map (which wasn't yet available at the time I made this) was made by a published expert, see source description on that map's page on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the map claims to be historical (traditionally spoken minority languages) and that it has many mistakes. Greeks' or mine personal idea about the term minority are not in question here. Recent sources about Megleno-Romanians exist in the respective article. It is 6 villages, in a far less area than the one you highlighted, which includes tens of settlements. User ·ΚέκρωΨ· had told you about that, but you wouldn't listen at the time. --Hectorian (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare the blob for Meglenitic in my map with that in Koryakov's. Yes, it's slightly larger, by about 30% in N-S direction, I guess. Oh the horror. Anything else? (Oh, and try to get your facts straight. I did make the corrections asked for by Kekrops. That was all about an earlier draft. Unlike certain others, Kekrops is actually capable of collaborating constructively on factual details where necessary.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Arvanitika not spoken continually from Athens to Corinth? A strip in the Isthmus is not Arvanitika speaking in ethnologue.com. How about Albanian not spoken in Preveza? How about... Dude, I have written all about that right above; But the mistakes are so may that I had forgot to mention Meglenitic. Sorry about that. --Hectorian (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the correction of removing the town of Corinth from the Arvanitic area, that's apparently what the Ethnologue map intended. Or do you mean those few square kilometers at the actual isthmus? Is that your beef? Dude, there's nobody there. It's water and a bridge. If you have more precise data, bring it on. About Albanian in Epirus, I was working from the eurominority report. Unfortunately they didn't give precise information about where exactly those villages are. Perhaps I might replace it with just a dot, like I did with Turkish in Rhodos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just water and a bridge... Similarly, in Pindus there are just forests and rocky peaks, but you've painted most of it. If Eurominority gives no data about the location of those villages, sorry, but it is unencyclopedic to place dots somewhere in the map, with the hope to be near the purported villages. Note: just realized that if someone landed in Athens International Airport, after reading your map, would expect listen to people speaking Arvanitika-trust me, he will be dissappointed.--Hectorian (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. The area around Spata and Markopoulo is the very heart of Arvanite-land. Are you really ignorant even of something this basic? We've had actual Arvanite contributors from those very places here in Wikipedia, who said they heard the language spoken every day. (In the homes, of course.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please! Used to be an Arvanitika-speaking area. Now it is heavily urbanized and most of the population is not even locals. That's why I will not stop repeating that the map is a historical one (though it also has mistakes). I bet there are more english-speaking employees in the numerous companies and factories there (cause it is also an industrial area), than the people who actually use and speak (even at home) Arvanitika. --Hectorian (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you finally get it into your skull that THIS IS NOT A DEMOGRAPHIC MAP? Numbers are irrelevant. This is not about majorities. As long as there's only a single speaker left of the autochthonous minority population, it falls within the scope of this map. If you want a map about population majorities, make a different map. It will of course be boring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you interested in opening conflicts on every country's article in Wikipedia? If this is how you created this map, then it is unacceptable. A couple of speakers in an area and you paint the whole area as belonging to a linguistic minority? Where else in Wikipedia have you seen such maps (let alone in main pages)?--Hectorian (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The map is meant to answer the question: What are the characteristic home regions of Arvanites (Vlachs, etc.)? Not more and not less. Do you seriously deny Spata or Markopoulo would be part of the answer to that question? And yes, if I wanted to make a linguistic map of where we have linguistic minority groups in Germany, I would colour areas for Sorbian or Frisian even if those groups had reached a degree of assimilation similar to that in Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the question the map is destined to answer, its place is not here. Yet, aside from Germany, why don't you create a map of FYROM under the same policies? I know, there will be no room for "Macedonian", but it will be in accordance of your own (and only) linguistic-map making rules. --Hectorian (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I might; actually, that might be an interesting map. Didn't come across the issue so far. Got some data? Of course, it's difficult to do anything constructive as long as there's a baying mob of POV-pushers permanently attacking this or that of the maps I've already made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree to the map's removal from this article per the reasons mentioned by Hectorian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, should I remove the boldface then? Would that make any difference? It's about building consensus. Technicalities about whether or not it is a vote are just that, technicalities. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But who'd fear a vote?? It's a democratic way, a basis to consensus, that has already worked (Talk:Byzantine Empire#Which Map). And as far as I know, Wikipedia is based on democracy.

Supporting the removal:
Hectorian
Tsourpk
Michael X the White

Against the removal:
Future Perfect at Sunrise

Any user with a sense of democracy and community consensus will accpet tis way of building consensus. On the contrary, those who dislike democracy or fear the outcome of the vote would be againist it. Please, everyone, express your view.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want a survey of opinions, do a proper Request for Comments, advertise it properly in neutral places, and make sure you don't engage in votestacking or canvassing. And it's still not going to be a vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When an editor does not want to discuss properly and on the issues raised, then we can have a poll. Btw, you already have a pending RFC, are you sure you wanna have one more? --Hectorian (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, not a user conduct RfC (although one about you might not be such a bad idea). An article content RfC, of course. Read up on the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am not familiar with all the processes. This, I suppose, will be the last solution, if discussion here leads nowhere. If it will be only you who defends the map, there is no reason for a RfC from my part. Do it yourself, if you like. --Hectorian (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Another threat from Fut., for those counting. --   Avg    18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course the discussion led somewhere! There is consensus! We, the democratic "baying mob of POV-pushers" didn't need a poll after all. So many of us here, and others long before us, if anyone checks the archives, have been against the map. So why keep it? Because FP wants to? Anyway you're already under discussion for similar matters. This is very relevant to this situation: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise --Michael X the White (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You three guys are not a "consensus". You will have the consensus of all those editors to contend with who have worked for the inclusion of the map and worked on its caption and embedding over the last half year, among them: 3rdAlcove [6], Aitias [7], Kekrops [8], Seleukosa [9], Polibiush [10], Dexippus [11], Man with one red shoe [12], JdeJ [13], Corvus cornix [14], El Greco [15], Chwech [16], Kapnisma [17], and now also Aramgar [18]. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is the following: The map is not per se the issue. The issue is that minorities in Greece have always been given undue weight, by people with not so innocent intentions. Per WP:WEIGHT there is a ridiculous amount of articles, sections, maps and other bits of (usually overlapping) information that deal with minorities in Greece. So which other country articles have such a map? For which other countries minority issues are explored in such detail and so many articles? And before someone templates me with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, knowledge is power and I'm all for it, however why a map depicting the linguistic minorities should be one of the only three maps in the main Greece article? Most Greeks I know are upset with the weight the minorities issue is given with regards to their country and believe there is a reason behind it.--   Avg    23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the problem is with Greeks, not with the "undue weight given to minorities", if Greeks would see minorities as an enriching element to their country they would not feel offended by any such maps or any atention give to minorities, the fact is that "minority" has become a dirty word in Greece, that even people who clearly constitute a liguistic minority in Greece reject it -- this pretty much says all there's to be said about the "minorities" issue, if a minority is ashamed to admit it's a minority, it's a clear problem with the majority and their level of tolerance (not to mention that this discussion is further proof, if there was any need for one). man with one red shoe (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All this theoretical talk is very nice and we can now all go and have a group hug and admire the harmony of the universe, however when the minority maps are primarily backed by people who support such theories as Greater Albania, United Macedonia and co it might be understandable to feel somewhat odd, wouldn't you say? What is funny is that by all accounts Greece is a rather homogeneous country. Nevertheless the amount of references to its minorities (and "minorities") is disproportionate to the percentage of the population they represent. --   Avg    03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support "Greater Albania" or "United Macedonia" and I don't think Fut.Perf. supports that either, you are being paranoid... So it's fear that drives this anti-minority feeling, you want to erase any idea of minority because you are afraid somebody would want to take a part of Greece away. It's good that we have things straightened up. man with one red shoe (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be so dramatic. It is a simple observation that whoever pushes for undue weight given to any subject usually has an agenda. The linguistic minorities map is perfectly placed in the Minorities in Greece article. Why it has to be duplicated in Greece? You completely misunderstand what I say. There's a place for everything in Wikipedia. Minorities is an important subject but not the prime subject with regards to Greece. It is the prime subject only for those who have a vested interest for it to be. Case study: Do you see anything odd with the following templates?

--   Avg    04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing odd, only lots of info missing. I might support placing the map in a sub-page, but not if the motivation is to ethnically cleanse the map of Greece out of fear of irredentism or territorial claims. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, what stops you to start an article about the Greek minority in Albania, instead of wasting your time trying to remove information it might be better to add info, the problem is not that there's info the problem is that other countries lack info, and this is never a valid argument to remove info from another country. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm specifically referring to undue weight and people with agendas. Just look at the amount of references to minorities in Greece just about everywhere (and especially one "minority", this is what it's all about, the others just jump on the bandwagon). And by the way "ethnic" is not equal to "linguistic" (and this is also a very important part of the issue). Now in terms of what is stopping me or anybody else, nothing is, it's just a matter of priorities (although admittedly having an article on minorities in addition to the article on demographics some people might consider it a duplication, or even a WP:POVFORK. Which brings us back to my initial point. --   Avg    05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Minorities are only a sub-subject of demographics, there's nothing wrong with having separate articles. It's not a POV, it's a subject. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make a long-winded comment but then I noticed that Avg simply said that it might not be necessary to replicate the map here since it's already included in the relevant article (leaving Hectorian's concerns with the map, generally, aside). What's the problem? 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, regarding the general comments on the "minorities of Greece", while I share some of Avg's concerns (as well as others, say the impact of map vs text on the average reader), I don't think there's anything problematic with the subject as treated by wiki. The articles have truly attracted a great deal of attention (see vandalism, undue weight, personal fantasies) from Balkanoid nationalist dunderheads (Romanian, Albanian and Macedonian ones would be the main perpetrators in this case) who felt that they should liberate their "relatives" in Greece (sorry, I meant that "they tried to promote fair treatment to minorities and present accurate accounts"), even if via online means and even if the "relatives"' self-identification has to be thrown aside (talk about "imagined communities" heehee). Obviously those people need not concern us (right?), especially if the subject is treated in a decent way, and I think it is right now. 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Trying to bring the discussion back where it begun and comment on recent posts)

The term minority might have negative connotations in Greece, but I would like to remind you that Greece isn't the only country. Bulgaria treats its Sarakatsani minority as different from the Greeks, despite them self-identifing as Greeks, being Greek Orthodox and speaking Greek. In FYROM, as recently as 1998 it was illegal for anyone to declare that he is Bulgarian. The Aromanians in FYROM and Albania, who have traditionally self-identified as Greeks are considered linguistc and ethnic minorities. The Greek speaking muslims in Turkey are not considered a linguistic minority. The Poles in Germany are not counted among the four "national minorities" (nationale Minderheiten), although they number more than 1.5 million. In addition, I cannot explain why it is that difficult for other people to understand that linguistic does not equal ethnic minorities. man with one red shoe said: even people who clearly constitute a liguistic minority in Greece reject it. They don't. What they do is that they do not want outsiders to present them as not only linguistically, but also as ethnically different than the rest of the population. In the case of the Aromanians, who, I repeat for one more time, they have been traditionally bilingual, even since long before the establishment of the modern Greek state, they successfully rejected any attempt from the EU masterminds to balkanize Greece. There have been so many minorities created for political reasons in the Balkans since 1991 than any other area of the world has ever seen. Fut. Perfect had said somewhere here that for the Greeks the term minority means a group oppressed by the state. To an extend, I will have to agree with him (for the first time in months); because the Greeks remember their own minorities: in Turkey (see Istanbul pogrom), in Albania (check the history of Communism in Albania), in Egypt (the 150,000 strong Greek presence in Egypt was forced to leave under Naser's regime); minorities that were oppressed intensively and continually. So, before acting like Pharisees judging the Greeks, take a minute to think what happened not long ago and how other countries behave to their minorities.

Certainly, when such a map exists, which according to its creator As long as there's only a single speaker left of the autochthonous minority population, it falls within the scope of this map, raises serious questions concerning the motivations behind its creation. The existence of 28,500 autocthonous Greeks in Eastern Rumelia would legitimize anyone to consider this area a minority one. The existence of the Greek Muslims in Pontus would drag as all in edit wars, if I (for example) created a map about the linguistic minorities in Turkey and placed it in the main article; note that if I (or someone else) ever creates such a map, I will ask demand from all of those who advocate here keeping the map, to do the same... In the case of FYROM, half the country would be Albanian-speaking, the north would be Serb and the 600 remaing Greeks (according to the last official census of course) would legitimize the inclusion of Monastiri in the Greek-speaking area. There would be no room for "Macedonian", since the rest would be Bulgarian-speaking (based on sources having the same validity and following exactly the same policies to make that map, as the policies followed here-id est: an elderly speaker in that village->a minority speaking village).

Aside from personal or political agendas, the map is in the wrong place, in addition to it being wrong. I have explained in detail and many times that the distribution of the minority languages is wrong. I referred to each language and each region separately. Whether Greece treats its minorities and "minorities" fair or not, the map continues to be wrong and in the wrong place. --Hectorian (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what's next? Reading the above arguments by Hectorian, Fut.Perf. and others, as it concerns me, I do not see the need for such a map in the front page of Greece's article, specially, since no other similar article has one. I am not saying that it should be totaly removed but if we work together avoiding meaningless accusations, I think we can create a better map. Kapnisma ? 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kapnisma, I respect you as an editor but you will hopefully understand that I am extremely tired of this debate. It is impossible to have this discussion as long as it's being held hostage by people like Crossthets or Hectorian. And I find it hard to discuss as long as general expressions of unhappiness with the idea and scope of the map as a whole are continually mixed in with vague references to a perceived need of improvements or corrections. If you have ideas of how to actually "create a better map", I'm all ears, but please make them concrete, pointing to specific details that should be changed, and to concrete, better sources to base the changes on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A reference doesn't mean it was done accurately or the source was reliable. This particular homemade map is based on very flaky evidence (there are few good demographic numbers on minorities in Greece much less language distribution). (and this isn't horse shoes to suggest keeping it until we find a better source where there is none currently). Its primary purpose appears intended to radically inflate the appearance of minorities in Greece (my guess Slavic ones in northern Greece most of all). IMO the inclusion of such an inaccurate map appears politically motived. How many of these maps exist on other country main pages? And why does it seem it is almost always the same individuals trying to undermine Greek ethnicity? I'd support it being immediately removed as well as this ridiculous map (which on a quick check appears to dramatically distort at least one of the source images(found on page 78 of pdf) by V. Friedman... was assisted by the FYROM government (found in the credits)... and references Thessaloníki as "Solun" in the source with (Thessaloníki in brackets). I suggest we take it to arbitration if anyone continues to object to the deletion of both maps from Wikipedia.

I'd also appreciate if some of the supporters of this map stopped stereotyping Greeks as xenophobic. It's quite offensive. If Greek contributers object consider perhaps its because they know their own country enough to spot a fake. Just a thought. --Crossthets (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue can be summarised in three sentences. Nobody objects in the creation of such a map. It is necessary for the map to be based on Reliable Sources and not Original Research. The map should not be given undue weight. It is that simple really.--   Avg    16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I've just uploaded a new version with some corrections. Aromanian data now directly copied from Image:South-Balkan-Romance-languages.png, which has watertight reliable sourcing. Presence of Albanian in Epirus / NW Macedonia reduced to mere dots to indicate unspecified locations and small numbers (the presence of some Albanian villages there is reliably sourced, only their exact identity and location isn't.) Some minor tweaks to the boundaries of Arvanitic in Peloponnese, cross-checking the available present-day data with historical maps. Seleukosa's zebra trick now also applied in the SVG version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no "watertight" reliable sources for such a map. How can there be such detail on language distribution when there isn't even good minority demographic information (and try not to forget Rainbow party totals here). I've been all over Greece. Other than a few tiny crevices in Macedonia, tourists and illegals... you could go an entire lifetime without hearing a native speak anything but Greek. Looking at the map though you'd think there were massive numbers of people who's primary tongue was non-Greek. (Similar to your homemade map of Slavic dialects in Greece that seems to match FYROM irredentist population positions.. and mentions Thessaloníki as "Solun"?). Maybe these distributions were true in pre-civil war Greece or during the Second Baltic War but its nowhere close to being true today (and massively exaggerated if it's based on any modern data). If your goal is to misinform Wikipedians then try and keep the map. I'm for removal and would support arbitration on the issue if this is a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.225.196 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I should probably have added... I am not opposed to a minority language map... as long as it meets the following criteria.

• the numbers appear to be from a trustworthy source using trustworthy methods
• the map accurately represent numbers with a legend (i.e one ethnic FYROM speaker doesn't result in 10,000 sq. km of coverage on a map)
• the phrase "traditional non-Greek language zones" is completely removed
• the map is moved to the minorities in Greece page (until such time as other countries all have minority language maps on their main page and it becomes standard Wikipedia policy)

Another point I should have probably mentioned... the current map seems to include illegals. For instance, there are tons of Albanians in Athens (You can find plenty in Omonia). Some of them are immigrants that are in the process of becoming legitimate Greek nationals but the vast majority are illegals looking for work. Without cross-referencing Greek government immigration records (which would require the input of the Greek government) there is no way to know their legitimacy.

My guess as to the reason for Greece's lack of numbers is a combination of being a top ten tourist spot, the collapse of communism in eastern Europe has lead to the arrival of huge numbers of illegals, being a tiny nation with limited resources makes it difficult to cope with the massive influx of people (relative to its population), and lacking a little foresight to anticipate the inevitable situation they are in. (Greece has largely lacked a coherent immigration policy up to now)

I imagine given the current mess with FYROM and the massive numbers of illegals now living in the country... their immigration and tracking policies will soon change. However, until it does and reliable verifiable numbers are available... no map with such precision on official language distribution throughout Greece can remotely be trusted. --Crossthets (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the "mass legalizations" of immigrants implemented by previous Greek administrations will be nullified in the near future. Given the fact that Greeks are extremely unhappy that so many "uninvited guests" are in their country, I wouldn't be surprised if mass expulsions of immigrants were to happen. So, pray that Greece's "brilliant" politicians get their shit together regarding immigration before the military implements "emergency measures" (Italy seems to be ahead of the game). In the meantime, I really wouldn't expect any reliable data from the Greek government regarding how many non-Greek immigrants (legal or illegal) reside in Greece given the fact that most mainstream politicians have avoided the issue...until now. Deucalionite (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deucalionite, they are not avoiding the issue; they just don't know. And this is not only a Greek phenomenon. No EU country knows how may immigrants live within its borders. All they know are just estimations. Everything began when certain politicians decided to open the borders, hand over citizenships and allow everyone to come in their countries, without asking their voters and without taking into account the macro-economic, macro-social, macro-everything concequences. Just for a couple of dollars more, they deliberately began to alter their countries' social, ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial, educational and economic structures, falsely believing that this would make them United States, without considering that the USA is based on such a diversity. This way, they have given rise to the far-rightists, undermining the European Union. I have not heard of what Italy may do, but this will get worst when specific immigrant groups will ask for minority rights. I remember an article by Der Spiegel just prior the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, statingt that UÇK groups plan to enter Greek territory and create ethnic tension among the Albanian immigrants and the Greeks, in order to attract international attention during the games. We should also not forget that in Kosovo the Albanians became a majority after series of waves of Albanian immigrants and settlers; Israel also acquired a Jewish ethnic majority cause of the immigrants and refugees. There is no international law prohibiting the peaceful altering of ethnic composition. But even if there was one, this would not stop those who have interests (there are laws against ethnic cleansing, but no country has ever been charged for the undisputed etnic cleansing in Cyprus, Palestine, Kosovo, Tibet, etc). In Greece, we may not have serious problems soon. Other EU countries, namely France, Germany, the UK will be the first. For the last two, there has not been that spark yet which will turn their cities into battlegrounds. Unless they take measures soon, this will soon happen. --Hectorian (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hectorian, you make very good points. However, I really doubt that mainstream politicians in Greece are completely ignorant about the issue. I can agree that they are deliberately ignoring immigration and downplaying its consequences to the point where their inability to confront the issue has rendered them inept in understanding its dynamics. Come on. It took one populist party (LA.O.S.) to break the taboo in Greek Parliament where talking about immigrants is "racist", "fascist", blah blah blah. The ironic thing in all this is that most immigrants probably see Greece as just a springboard to launch themselves into more prosperous EU nations like Germany, France, and Sweden. They figure that Greece is too small (geographically and economically) for it to support, quite literally, foreign colonies. Of course, the immigrants that decide to stay in Greece have so far established "ethnic gangs" that take pleasure in killing each other and contributing to the colorful world known as the black market. Unfortunately, the natives are mostly stuck in the crossfire forced to "tolerate" these new conditions (thank you "multiculturalism"). Gee, I wonder if politicians are bold enough to implement strict forms of legislation that prevents acts of soft colonialism and removes extant soft imperialists? One wonders.

Interestingly, recent reports from Patras indicate that most Greeks were revolting against the fact that their area has been literally flooded with immigrants. Surprise, surprise. Deucalionite (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece situates partially in Asia

The source, which shows that Greece situates partially in Asia: Around the world: Countries that exist wholly or partially within geographical Europe, inter alia From the Black Sea coast, the geographical border of Europe passes through the deepest parts of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Bosphorus; on through the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea; through the deepest parts of the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean and around to the Straits of Gibraltar. The line through the Aegean Sea divides the Greek Islands between continental Europe and continental Asia.
--WPK (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's an inherently wrong or unreasonable position, but your link is not a reliable source. We have no evidence that geographers have any common definition for this question. Or that they even treat it as a question to be answered in the first place, for that matter. In any case, it's an extremely minor point and doesn't belong in the lead. And please don't use that map, it's unsuitable for a number of reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a minor point even if there were a consensus among geographers. man with one red shoe (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New linguistic map

As usual, a new version has been uploaded, supposedly a corrected/more detailed one. For each language separetly:

1. Arvanitika: again, Corinth is included, though said it was removed from the previous version. All of Attica and Boeotia appears to be Arvanitika-speaking, though this was not the case.

2. Aromanian: remarkable direct copy from Image:South-Balkan-Romance-languages.png, that I would applause, if something "less" important did not attract my attention: In Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia-Acarnania, East Macedonia copying worked perfectly! However, in Central and West Macedonia it did not. Maybe in order not to put in dispute the... largely "Macedonian"-speaking area? (λέω εγώ τώρα...). Not to mention that this map is based primarily on a 1991 map. Secondarily, I've no idea...

3. Albanian: if you do not know the names of the villages do not just drop dots in Epirus. Apropos, what kind of reliable sources are those that do not provide exact identity and location?

4. The new invention of Pomak language is still there. This fullfills only one goal: to draw a difference between Slavic in West Macedonia and Slavic in Western Thrace. A typical sign of FYROMian propaganda and linguistic hoax.

5. Turkish remains in Kos though the map in ethnologue.com dissagrees. Which source was used for that?

6. Roma and Armenian are still missing.

In conclusion:

1. This "new" map is no better than the previous.

2. This "new" map has no place in an article about a nation that deals with the present.

I wonder why don't we create a map about present day distribution of minority languages in Greece according to majority per area? It may be boring, but at least it would be far more encyclopedic and suitable for the article; not to mention that there would not be any danger to mislead and misinform as this map does. Talking about areas in a "traditional" way, how is this map about areas traditionally inhabited by the Greeks? Greeks and Greek language speakers still exist in these areas, even if in some they are like a 100 in each prefecture. But this doesn't really mind, 'cause As long as there's only a single speaker left of the autochthonous minority population, it (would) fall within the scope of this map... --Hectorian (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. Romani and Armenian aren't tied to specific areas (for all I know), so it's no use mapping them. Presence of Turkish-speakers in Kos is common knowledge, refs can be found at Minorities in Greece. The refs for Albanian in Epirus are those cited, read them. Are you denying those villages exist? The town of Corinth is excluded just as it was before; the surrounding areas of course are included. This is just not easy to see because I was forced to do those godamn useless stripes, which obfuscate the areas. The Aromanian spots in the north are all there, again, they are just not so easy to see because the colour contrasts with the purple don't work well with the damned stripes. If people had let me do all in solid colours, it would all be much easier to read. The map makes no claim about "Pomak" being the name of a separate language (though I note in passing that Greek authorities have in fact promoted that idea), the term is simply used as a social/regional identifier because our articles use it. The complete inclusion of Boeotia and Attica in the Arvanitic area is, of course, intentional; that's what the literature says. I quote the description of the traditional Arvanite area in the most authoritative source, Sasse:

1. All of Boeotia with the exception of the westernmost corner and a few newly founded locations in the area of the former Kopais lake; c. 70 villages. Arvanites also constitute a large part of the present population of the towns of Livadhia and Thebes, which are not originally Arvanite settlements.
2. Six neighbouring locations in Fthiotida, forming the northernmost extension of the Arvanitic linguistic area.
3. All old settlements in Attica with the exception of the old city center of Athens and the town of Megara; c.80 settlements.
4. The north-western part of Corinth and Argolis, with the exception of their capitals and a few surrounding villages; plus a large part of the northern coast of the Peloponnes, a number of villages in Achaia south of Patras, and a few enclaves in the south of the Peloponnese; c.100 settlements.
5. The south of the eparchia of Karystia in Euboea; c.60 settlements.
6. The north of Andros: 11 main villages and a larger number of small settlements, some of which are in the process of depopulation.

— H.-S. Sasse: Arvanitika: die albanischen Sprachreste in Griechenland. Wiesbaden 1991, p.3. Cited here, my translation from the German.

This pretty much coincides with what the Eurominority report says, with the exception of the northern coast of the Peloponnese, which that report describes as no longer active and which I've left out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to end this map-thing

My proposal, just to avoid these, useless to me, debates, is:

• to replace those stripes that create so many problems regarding their geographical and academic accuracy with coloured lines that will present a general view of the areas that those languages are, or used to be spoken, an (amateurish and simply declarative) example:

we will avoid the ineleganty long explanation: Traditional non-Greek language zones in Greece. Note: Greek is the dominant language throughout Greece; inclusion in a non-Greek language zone does not necessarily imply that the relevant minority language is still spoken there, or that its speakers consider themselves an ethnic minority and as I said before, endless, thus useless debates on whethere those stripes are accurate or not

• to avoid placing the map on the main article but on the one about minorities based on the fact that it is irrelevant with the main article's function, to give general and not specific informations and because it provokes reasonable doupts why this methode of mapping traditional language minorites is applied only here.

• to avoid insults, accussations and childish comments and discuss properly.

Kapnisma ? 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I could accept a slightly different compromise: using such a deliberately more vague map here for Greece, but leaving the detail in the original map for the detail articles. Replacing the map in those articles with one that is deliberately less informative doesn't strike me as a very useful idea. — As for the caption, it certainly sucks. But that's not my fault. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a start...What's the opinion of the other rebels? Kapnisma ? 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In short a reply to Fut.Perf.: For both Aromanian and Arvanitika you have used sources dated back at least to 1991. The sources you have used for Aromanian are not clear (see the map's info). Livadhia and Thebes are included though Sasse says they are not originally Arvanite settlements (originally=traditionally, I suppose). For Albanian in Epirus, name the villages with a valid source and I will try to find their exact location.

• I am against the removal of the stripes. In addition, they should be extended to the places they are not used, regarding the existing map. The long explanation shall remain. Of course, if Kapnisma's map is about to be included, I am for it.
• Removal of the map from the main article. No reason for it to be there, and no reason for Greece's article to be an exception.
• I'm working on that.

Isn't it better to create a map about the present distribution of minority languages in Greece? Why is there a need for traditionally non Greek speaking areas anyway? In which other country's articles such a map exists? --Hectorian (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, we agree on the coloured circles solution... Let us, take a brake, assigne to Fut.Perf. or anyone else interested to modify the map for a start, and continue later on the subject of where to place it, does anyone has a different opinion? From my point of view, we will either agree to remove it from the main article, or we place similar maps to other countries just to avoid those reasonable questions mentioned above. After all Caesar's wife must be above suspicion Kapnisma ? 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Wait, no. We don't agree. I said I might agree with the simplified colored-circle one here, but I certainly don't agree with turning this map into such a one and replacing it everywhere. This map must be preserved, in its present level of precision, for use in the detail articles. I'm not going to have it completely superceded by a dumbed-down one.

And, frankly, the more I think of it, the more I doubt the circles will be any solution anyway, here or there. You know what's gonna happen? Two weeks after we've uploaded the coloured circles, an angry Greek newcomer will turn up here, guns blazing, and start berating us about how those circles imply that within each circle everybody only speaks Slavic and how the size of the circles inflates the importance of those languages, yada yada yada, ftu ki'ap'tin arxi. Because as long as there are idiots out there hell-bent on misreading it, they will misread it, no matter how the graphics are designed. And they'll be right in a way: Logically, circles versus coloured specks makes absolutely no difference, just as the stripes made no difference. No matter what graphical technique you use, the meaning will always be the same: some geographical areas will be associated with some linguistic group. What kind of association that is – exclusive use of the language, majority use, former majority use, some quantitative threshold level, some former use within living memory, last few speakers left, historical presence only, or whatever – is simply something the map itself can never tell us, only the surrounding text can. So, let's not direct our attention to doctoring with the graphics, and above all, let's not dumb the map down in such a futile attempt at solving a problem the graphics can't solve anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kapnisma..I would support removal of the map. As I pointed out previously...

• the map crosshatch appears to wildly distort the frequency of native non-Greek speakers (the main issue for me) If the study was allegedly conducted via scientific methods then it should mean the mapmaker can provide us a few actual numbers and the statistical methods used to compile those numbers... which should mean a legend can also be provided that accurately reflects those numbers to scale.
• Was the frequency of language distribution cross referenced with legal immigrant status?
• The phrase "traditional non-Greek language zones" should be completely removed (or at the very least rephrased to remove "traditional".
• the map should be moved to the minorities in Greece page (until such time as other countries all have minority language maps on their main page and it becomes standard Wikipedia policy).

btw-Futper, avoidance isn't a debate strategy. We both know how we view each others motives but it's another day and we can still use it to be civil to each other. I'm not trying to be patronizing saying this. Can you please push our issues aside and just deal with the points in question? I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from you as the mapmaker who's the chief advocate for adding it to the Greece page. If I don't get one soon I'll assume you have ceded these points and will remove the map myself. --Crossthets (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't like the proposed map, it conveys no information, at least the one that was before gave a general idea of where people speaking different languages were/are. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a quite fair attempt to compromise tottaly differend opinions, it's on your hands to decide either to continue an endless debate or to agree in something... It is true that a map with circles it will have little information, but on the other hand I do not see any map like this nor in Turkey, nor in Albania, nor in Germany, nor in Romania, nor in Russia, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor everywhere. It is true that with the stripes it gives an idea of where these people used to live, but on the other hand it's not accurate and there are many more it is true, but. If you can't agree at nothing let's take it higher. Kapnisma ? 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay, circles! VERY simplified.

I, for one, appreciate your efforts at coming up with new ideas, even if I may not agree with all. Just to clarify, did you really mean something as simplified as this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like this, with some minor themes for further discussion and please ρε φιλε, Crossthets, μην το μαμας το θεμα, συζητηση κανουμε... Kapnisma ? 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kapnisma, I appreciate you are trying to have a light touch here. And if you want to be less direct than I....I'm good with that. And as I said to him, if he doesn't want to address issues with me that's perfectly acceptable I'm quite content discussing these issues with other users. Do you care to offer some feedback on my above points?

--Crossthets (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed map since you refuse to address my points. I notified you in advance of this move.--Crossthets (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramgar restored. Presumably you want to keep ignoring me thats perfectly acceptable.I will take up the issues in question with whomever you refer. --Crossthets (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my taste may not correspond with the average., but I find the new sample map a bit silly, as a first impression a reader might have. Can someone try with closed lines which roughly coincide with the borders of the coloured areas ? And maybe with small concentrated dots for the smaller areas. A darker background might help the eye also. I can't experiment myself, my Ubuntu install is too old and i'm cut off from the main repositories, it may still look weird, i don't know. If no one else has similar concerns then it's just me. --Zakronian (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian, coloured outline shapes instead of filled-in coloured areas would be very easy to do technically, no problem, and perhaps they'd even be visually more appealing, who knows. I'm just not sure what else you want to achieve with it. In what sense to you feel outline contours would convey a meaning different from filled-in colour areas? They don't. Just as striped areas don't convey a meaning different from solid areas. As long as they aren't used contrastively within the same map. All of these graphical means have the same function: they define a territory and associate it with whatever the legend says. What exactly the nature of that association is is not something the map itself can tell the reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the reason although following the previous discussion from the start i didn't participate. Reaching such degree of vagueness might have the opposite result from what the editors that raised the issue hoped for and probably weakens the arguements of those that support the map has a purpose in this article also, apart from maybe undermining the article with a map that some will think it's childish. To my understanding the objections are mostly based on a certain feeling the current map creates than to concrete arguements. That's why i proposed changes that won't affect accuracy too much but will present the areas "lighter" to the eye, a simplified contour that won't follow details but the approximate shape of each area. Other than that, i respect all Greek editors but if i had to choose between something close to this sample and the current map i'd go with the latter. --Zakronian (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for the involved parties: similar maps with this one are under way; maps that involve FYROM, Albania, Turkey, Bulgaria and many more (I intentionally mentioned only Greece's neighbours). The creator of this map may feel "proud" (if the map stays here) and be ready to use all powers in hands to defend the similar maps in their respective articles. Failure to do so, by any of the involved parties, will result in CfC, RfD and any mean possible. Greece is not a sui generis case and same "traditional" map-editting policies will be applied. If this is about to become standard wiki-policy, let it be so... And if edit-revert wars are about to occur, I am certainly not to blame. --Hectorian (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the circles' map seems fine to me. --Hectorian (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hectorian, I think I've advised you of WP:POINT a couple times before, when you've used this same tactics of tit-for-tat threats, so I'm not going to bother explaining its meaning again to you. You have had ample warning. I will certainly support maps if they are responsibly made, informative and used to support legitimate content in artcles. If these new maps turn out to be what it sounds like now, deliberate caricatures made to be as unacceptable and provocative as possible, I will make sure you get banned. Your post just above is clear enough evidence of your intent to disrupt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The maps won't be provocative at all for you, for I will use the exact same map making policies as you did. No case of WP:POINT, since you are elevating these maps into standard wikipedia policy. I think I have also adviced you not to threaten me again, but you keep saying you'll make sure I'll be banned; do not abuse the powers the community gave you. --Hectorian (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand a map which includes Pomak and Turkish language spoken in areas of north Thrace and Slavomakedonian spoken in areas of Florina but what's the point in including "traditional" areas where Slavic or Arvanitika or Vlachika were spoken when they don't correspond to the reality of the modern Greece whose minorities the article clams to deal with? If someones makes a map in Turkey with Smyrna or Kappadokia or the greater area of Pontus or the Kars region with Greek and Armenian language colours which doesn't correspond to present realities would that make sense? Because it's the same here.

Arvanitika extinct

Vlachika extinct

Aromanian extinct

Albanian (Epirus) extinct

I read in your discussion board that you claimed you wouldn't put a bunch of minority languages to an alleged German map because they are all but extinct well that's the case here.

--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that they aren't extinct. Not yet. Read the literature. Or talk to our fellow Wikipedians. Hectorian himself just said that he is an active speaker of Vlach. As I keep saying, the minority languages may not be highly visible to the casual visitor in everyday life, but they are still there. The case in Germany I mentioned there, Polabian, has been extinct since the 18th century at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually live in Greece so i know first hand the situation. I am certain there are people who speak polish (not immigrants) in Germany elders and some rare occasions (like a German hectorian) but you claimed it's extinct. I have relatives and i know many vlach or arvanitan people (vlachopoulos,vlachakis,vlachos,arvanitis,arvanitoglou,arvanitidis,arnaoutoglou etc are relatively common surnames) and not a single one knew vlachika or arvanitika. The language survives only through very elderly people in distant villages. It's all but extinct and in any case it's way way way less used than the map implies. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There are professional people who have studied these issues and they know better than you. By the way, is the present Archbishop of Athens also one of those "very elderly people in distant villages"? (There are reliable sources he's a fluent speaker). And no, there's no native Polish minority in Germany. Learn history. The areas where there used to be an autochthonous Polish minority are all now actually in Poland. There never was any in what is now German territory. (There were 19th-century internal work migrants, but that's a different kettle of fish.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He is 70 years old. So yes obviously he is one of those elderly people. My comment about Polish come as a counterargument, put whatever linguistic minority you have there (i don't care nor do i know) that's wasn't the point of the argument. Still the focus is about whether these languages are dead or not and the answer is simple yes whether you like to admit it or not. We live and interact with people from these groups, i have actually relatives from such backgrounds so spare me the teaching. The map doesn't represent reality. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A language still spoken by a substantial part of the older generation across the areas where it used to be the primary community language until a few decades ago is not dead. It will be, inevitably, in a couple of decades more, but it is not now. The reliable academic literature unanimously treats these minority areas, in the geographical extent shown, as a significant part of the present-day language situation in Greece, whether that matches your lay-person's perception or not. Read the f...ing literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not twist my words Fut.Perf.. I speak little Aromanian occasionaly, yet I am not a native speaker. My mother language is Greek. This is the case of most of the Aromanians in Greece. Read the bibliography and you will see that fluent and native (let alone monolingual people) are very very few, nothing like your map implies. Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens may be a fluent speaker, yet you do not know if he is a native speaker nor if his mother tangue is Arvanitika.

A simple question: when a minority language becomes traditionally linked with a region? We live in the 21st century. You say that the 19th century Polish immigrants in Germany is a different case. Then why the after 16th century Turkish settlers in Rhodes and Kos are not the same case? The Arvanites moved to traditionally Greek-speaking areas in the 14th century. What is going on here... what I was afraid of? a sui generis Greek case? --Hectorian (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just too stupid. You are being deliberately obtuse, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just to stupid for you 'cause you do not have an argument for it. --Hectorian (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What fucking literature?Is there a census about the speakers? No there isn't. In what is the writer's opinion based? When did he wrote his book? In 19th century? in 1940 in 1960? Where it was based as there aren't any linguistic census?In personal interviews in his lay-person interaction that you snub and don't care about? There is no logic and consistency in your sayings. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

READ. THE. FUCKING. LITERATURE. There is just a tiny chance that you might actually find out the answers to your questions. If, that is, you can be bothered to read it more perceptively than how you read what people tell you here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to prove the accuracy of the map you created and show us the specific chapters of the sources where you based the coloring of the map. I am curious to see where is the modern census you base your claims on. If that's not the case then you are simply abusing your position as admin to intimidate other contributors and have your map intact despite all counter-arguments. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For the creation of his map, Fut.Perf. used the following sources:

• Generally this map from ethnologue.com, which has information raging from 1976 to 2002. It also has various mistakes, for example it says that the Slavic speakers are 180,180 in Greece (1986 census); there was no census in 1986 in Greece.
• euromosaic calls the Slavic languages as Le [slavo]macédonien / bulgare, the creator of the map ommits (slavo). Also, euromosaic does not draw difference between slavic in West Macedonia and slavic in East Macedonia. The creator of the map does.
• For Aromanian he has used a map based on a 2001 map, in turn based on one from 1991, and other secondary unnamed sources. Previously he had used a 1925 Romanian map for Meglenitic; even that map was about Megleno-Romanians and not their language.
• For Albanian in Epirus, the source is in French, so I cannot read it. Yet, I managed to see the word "Tsam" in there. If this is the reason for the dots, it is false, since the Tsams were expelled after WWII. --Hectorian (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the French source claims that "Aujourd'hui, on ne recense guère plus de 100 à 150 sujets Tchams musulmans en Grèce." today, you can't find more than 100-150 muslim Tsam subjects in Greece . At another point it states that all other christian subjetcs of the area claim no relation with the Tsams. So can you call 100-150 people's dialect a minority language? Keep in mind Tsams are not a recognised minority. Also, the source states that Tsamika is a different dialect called "tsam" ( où soit parlée la variété dialectale dite tsam). Why then adding "Albanian"?--Michael X the White (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your reading comprehension really that poor, are you just trolling? The source is talking about Christian Albanophones in Epirus. Yes, it does state that those people don't identify ethnically with the name "Chams" ("répugnent à se désigner comme Tchams"), but it also states that they speak essentially the Cham dialect ("locuteurs chrétiens de la variété dilaectale tcham "). About their distribution, it says:

Les locuteurs chrétiens de la variété dilaectale tcham sont, quant à eux, implantés dans les départements suivants:

• Thesprotie: ils occupent la majeure partie du département, et sont essentiellement installés dans la zone frontalière avec l'Albanie.
• Prévéza: dans la partie du département de Prévéza limitrophe de la Thesprotie (Prévézaniko) et dans quelques villages au nord de Thesprotiko.
• Ioannina: de rares villages dans la zone limitrophe de la Thesprotie et du département de Prévéza [un village situé au nord de Konitsa est également albanophone].

I trust even Hectorian will be able to decipher that. Or is the idea too complex for you to understand? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is your reading comprehension really that poor, are you just trolling? " -- you can make a point without personal attacks. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, it says that Albanophones exist in Thesprotia near the Albanian border, in the area about where the three prefectures' (Ioannina, Preveza, Thesprotia) borders meet and in a village near Konitsa. I have nothing personal against euromosaic.com, but I would expect from a site with such a quantity of information like this one to at least provide the names of the villages. Lacking this vital information, I can place the whole matter of existance in present day of albanophones other than immigrants in Epirus into serious question, plus the neutrality of the site. I may not have any knowledge of French, but I would recognize the name Florina if it was there. Why is there a dot denoting albanophones' dot in the map? --Hectorian (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to cherry-pick your sources according to your likings. These are all reliable academic publications, period. Whether they go to the level of detail you (or I) would wish they did is nothing for you to judge. As for Florina, it's mentioned a few paragraphs further down ("On dénombre en outre trois villages albanophones dans le département de Florina"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I may offer another solution, currently the map has only one parameter, it just mentions that a certain language is spoken in the area but it doesn't specify the number of speakers. So how about adding another parameter, using darker tones of the same colour for high-density areas and lighter tones for low-density areas? Below we can specify categories like >10,000 speakers, >5,000 speakers, >1,000 speakers etc--   Avg    20:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to do that, but in order to do so we would really need what everybody is complaining is missing: numbers. We don't have them. Distinguishing between high and low density areas on the basis of what we have, now that really would be original research. At present, the map is making a qualitative, not a quantitative claim, and only that. The areas shown are supposed to be those where a minority language was the living community language at least within the recent past, i.e. within living memory, and at least remnants of that language community (i.e. older-generation speakers) were still there at the end of the 20th century. That's the only information the reliable sources provide. Of course, assimilation and language attrition have progressed at different rates in different places, but at what rates and to what extent in what area, that's something for which we only have anecdotal reports but no comprehensive surveys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another reason why this map is tottaly alien with the aim of the article which is to inform the reader about modern Greece. No census no numbers no methodology in proving how these linguistic borders are defined when numbers are lacking. This map is a unique case in all countries pages i have seen in wiki. The same time where strong linguistic minorites of present times in Turkey (Kurdish, Arab, Rumca), Bulgaria (Turkish, Roma), FYROM (Albanian, Turkish), Romania (Roma, Hungarian) aren't adressed, in Greece we adress dead languages with no relevance to modern realities. In greece of 1920 it would correspond to truth, in Greece of 2008 not even close. And the thing is so obvious which makes someone wonder about your insistance FPS and that's what we tried figure out in my talk page. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. Of course, keep in mind that many academians in the 1920s developed ethno-cultural histories/studies based on languages. You know the old story. If it quacks like a duck, then forget the fact that there is a quacking mongoose in front of you. Academic standards demand that you focus only on the "quacking" first and the "quackers" whenever. God forbid if the "quackers" merely adopted "quacking" centuries ago (with some waddling) and to this day regard their "quacking" as something "traditional". Ha. Deucalionite (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote Futper on his homemade map

"I would love to do that, but in order to do so we would really need what everybody is complaining is missing: numbers."

If numbers are missing... then the map is NOT scientific... i.e. it should be removed. A map based on non-scientific evidence is worse than than not-having a map (much less on the main Greece page) because it presupposed information where there is none. Pending an answer from Aramgar I will remove the image again. --Crossthets (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AGREE 87.221.5.113 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT AGREE As this reference indicates the fact why there are not number ,this does not mean no to write at all , the linguistic map of Greece with their main people language Arvanitika in the south and Albanian in the north Epirus and Macedonia.

"Modern Greece has always been a multilingual country. Accurate information on how multilingual it is is very difficult to obtain: no Greek census since 1951 has included questions about language. There has also been a certain distortion in some of the academic research on this topic brought about by anti-minority Greek nationalism. ""Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics.Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 153.

This is hardly a reliable and accurate source. Apparently, Mr. Ammon is implying that because Greece is multilingual that it is automatically multiethnic. Moreover, "multilingualism" in Greece also constitutes a wide variety of Greek dialects from Tsakonian to Maniot. His arguments are generally basless given the fact that many so-called Greek "minorities" have never declared themselves as ethnically distinct from Greeks. That Mr. Ammon is quick to use phrases like "anti-minority Greek nationalism" only indicates that he is unaware of the fact that many non-Greek speaking Greeks assimmilated into mainstream Greek culture during the 20th century. That there was political pressure for non-Greek speaking Greeks to speak Greek does not mean that linguistic minorities are "oppressed ethnic minorities".

I am not surprised that Greek censuses did not include language-based questions. Such a phenomenon proves that Greeks do not base "Greekness" on language alone. Moreover, Greece's neighbors would automatically exploit "linguistic censuses" to prove the existence of "unredeemed ethnic groups" in Greece. It seems that many users are hell-bent on downplaying the fact that there are Greek-speaking, Albanian-speaking, Slavic-speaking, and Turkish-speaking Greeks.

Based on what has happened so far, I may have to agree with Mr. Crossthets that the linguistic map requires scientific/statistical data. As the old saying goes: "Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups". Deucalionite (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a Greek then if it is not the genos and the language, just speaking Greek as another language and living like a Greek ?! There are maybe not numbers because this process is obiuvesly obscured but there is a lot of indirect reference, mentioning whom and where the linguistic groups live. Else you can gossip a source while you do not know the author.Are you going to obscure them?

Read some real history and stop citing "indirect references" before accusing me or anyone else for "obscuring sources". Deucalionite (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ancient Hist. A person who used the Greek language and was influenced by Greek culture, although not a native Greek; spec. a Jewish person of the Diaspora, who used the Septuagint and the Greek language in the synagogue (opposed to a Hebraist), or such a person who converted to Christianity in the early years of the Church. Oxford English Dictionary 2008.

• The London Conference reduced the amount of ethnic Albanian-dominated territory of the former Ottoman Empire, Cameria (Chamouria) was granted to Greece.Walden Publishing Ltd. Greece Profile (2006/April). Cambridge, England: World of Information, 2006. p 161.

• They are Christians – at least 20 000 Moslem Albanians, mostly from northern Greece, have left the country since the 1920’s – and this aids their sense of identification with Greek culture; Peter Trudgill, Fribourg (Switzerland) Daniel Schreier, Bern (Switzerland) Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics.Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 154.

• Attica, Biotia and much of the Peloponnese (see Williams 1992); many of the suburbs of Athens are or were until recently Arvanitika-speaking: politicians electioneering in Attica up until the 1880’s used Arvanitika in their public speeches….. The 1951 census gives a figure of 23 000, but this is certainly too small. But my own research in the 1970’s in the villages of Attica and Biotia alone indicated a figure of at least 30 000 speakers (see Trudgill/Tzavaras 1975; 1977). Peter Trudgill, Fribourg (Switzerland) Daniel Schreier, Bern (Switzerland) Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics.

Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 159. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Aramgar didn't answer my questions for his revert of my map removal (I waited several days). So does anyone else care to offer a coherent rebuttle as to the following questions that remain unanswered or I will work to delete the image again. (along with this inaccurate map by Futper that references Thessaloníki as "Solun" and was partially helped by the FYROM government)

• 1. Given that Futper has now admitted he lacks actual numbers... then on what statistical basis can the map be assumed to be accurate? (the only answer I know is "guessing".... hardly justification).

• 2. Given no actual statistics were actually involved in making the map... does it seem likely the information provided was cross-referenced with citizenship? (no I assume)

• 3.Was it checked if the speakers primary language was still actually Greek? Some ethnic Greeks speak slavic dialects because they border slavic FYROM. Some Slavophone Greeks still see Greek as their primary tongue. (again I assume no)

• 4. Can someone please list me a few other countries with similar designed minority language distributions on their main article page? (i.e. non-official language maps based on similar "scientific evidence") --Crossthets (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We're clearly in a situation where the data used to create the map are outdated or not-available/accessible. If the figures used to create the map refer to a bygone era, the only place suitable for the map is in a linguistic history of the areas involved, not in main Greece article. Also what does the word "traditional" in the caption of the map really means? Does it imply that these areas are still populated by "non-Greek" communities, or were populated sometime in the past? And are these communities truly "non-Greek"? I think the vagueness introduced by the map and its caption renders the content truly un-encyclopedic. Walnutjk (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

...and we will never have any numbers to make an accurate map, as all these "minorities" are not recognised (where they may possibly exist or still exist) so these minority languages are not counted in the censuses. So all we have is speculation from the minority "adopting" side , where there is one (as Chams with Albania, and the claims of FYROM for a minority). If our scope is to provide the reader here to the current state of Greece, then this map, outdated, as Walnutjk said, has no place here. Any number-claiming source can hardly be RS, and, there is not the space here to fully explain the map to the reader, still leaving a probability that these large areas are populated by those "minorities". I still believe that the map must at least leave this page.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a logical assessment. I too agree that the map should be removed if there is no scientific basis for its overall construction. Deucalionite (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So, to sum-up we have a plagiarised map taken from a dubious (by some) website, distorted freely without any numbers or demographics to back its claims and no-one really knows when the languages presented were spoken by the majority (or at least a significant number of speakers) in the areas highlighted. I think it's time for a Rfd... Walnutjk (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen anyone bring any counter-argument so i agree this map shall be removed as inaccurate and unscientific. A map is nor placebo neither a short of artistic necessity so when there are no official (or any kind as in this case) numbers backing it, it has simply no place here --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole talk about numbers is a red herring. As I said before, the map is based on qualitative, not quantitative data. It doesn't "count" people, it makes no claims about numbers, either implicitly or exiplicitly, it isn't based on numbers, it has nothing to do with numbers. It makes the qualitative statement that in a given area, a given language has been an active community language within living memory and there is at least one generation of speakers still living. This is academically sound, it is how the relevant academic literature treats the issue, this is what our reliable sources say. The map follows the data found in the literature as precisely as humanly possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the only red herring here is the map's purpose. It's not here to educate or present facts about so called minority languages. Its clear purpose is to highlight the alleged non-Greek communities and their presence in the Greek territory. It's only here for the purposes of our friends in the north to say: hey most of the Greek Macedonia is populated by our people anyway, so what's the fuss when we claim the language, history and territory... please spare me with the rhetoric about "qualitative" vs. "quantitative" and "the map is precise as humanly possible", all the Greek editors here (me included) just don't buy it anymore. Walnutjk (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So how many "generation of speakers" shall be to be included? I have friends who speak the Tolkien language shall they be included also? They learned from their fathers who were fans of the Lord of the rings books so that's traditional i guess. As all 4 of them live in Thessaloniki i would suggest to have a pointer to specifically highlight this. Ah and as i see linguistic borders are volatile and randomly drawn so please include Thasos too because one of them owns an apartment there. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I heard someone speaking Albanian in Corfu, let's paint the island on the map red :) . Joke aside, as there's no realiable lingustic map in any other wikipedia article, there's no reason to have one here. As FutPerf admitted, the map wasn't drawn based on demographics and that's precisely the point of everyone in this discussion. This map is inherently academically unsound. Walnutjk (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If even Future Perfect admits to a lack of quantitative data, then there should be no reason for the linguistic map to remain. Even from a "qualitative" standpoint, the image is hardly accurate. The reason for this is that most of the sources used to form it assume that linguistic identity in Greece is identical to ethnic identity. This is an erroneous assumption "verified" by studies that try to brand non-Greek linguistic minorities [that possess a Greek ethnic identity] as "passive non-Greek ethnicities". Of course, this is something that has persisted in academic circles years before the establishment of the modern Greek nation-state and forms of so-called "anti-minority Greek nationalism". If reality was that cut and dry in terms of separating ethnic groups only through linguistic means, then the map would be correct and I would not be here disputing its accuracy.

If removing the image helps to enhance the level of accuracy and quality in this article, then I vote to have it removed immediately. Deucalionite (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete, utter, nonsense. You are fantasizing things into both the map and its sources that are simply not there. And nobody here cares about your judgment about what views of these groups are correct or not. We have to follow what our reliable sources say, period. Cut your crappy OR speculation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cut your crappy OR speculation". I am sorry to upset you my friend, but you do deserve the right to know that my statements about "passive ethnicities" are not based on aspects of my imagination.

Of course, you think that my statements are OR when you have failed to convince everyone here what scientific data your map is based on. Reliability should technically be based on a source's accuracy rather than on the notion that a source is published by "Oxford University Press".

Come on Future Perfect. All you have to do is provide the science behind the map. I don't think anyone is asking for much else regardless if they agree or disagree with my "imaginative" judgments.

Take a deep breath. Calm down. Count to ten. And show us the science. Deucalionite (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some sources obviously do describe groups like the Arvanites using the term "ethnicity". Who are you to judge that this is wrong? But either way, it has not the slightest relevance for this map, which isn't about the nature of these groups, but purely about their geographic locations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Exercising forms of reasonable skepticism is a healthy practice regardless if you are questioning reliable or unreliable sources. The process helps accurate data become more accurate. Of course, the map can be unfortunately construed as being more than just an image providing the geographical location of non-Greek speaking communities.

The core issue here is: What accurate scientific evidence is this map based on? Without demographic evidence, then why support something that may in fact be inaccurate? Deucalionite (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. The map is based on the evidence that scholars went to those places and spoke to people and heard that there were people who spoke those languages. You know, you don't have to count everybody in order to find out that much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If scholars went and heard foreign languages in Greece by speaking to people, then why did they not provide accurate demographic data? Moreover, what scientific parameters did these scholars utilize to determine if those they interviewed were not, by any chance, bi-lingual or tri-lingual speakers?

The problem here my friend is that your sources exhibit significant degrees of linguistic determinism. Granted, one can obviously establish the fact that linguistic-based sources are needed to develop purely linguistic maps. However, if scholars failed to acknowledge the potential bi-lingual and tri-lingual capabilities of Greeks before and after the establishment of the Greek nation-state, then I am afraid the linguistic map is hardly accurate from even a linguistic standpoint.

Now, I agree that qualitative evidence is better than no evidence. However, one of the potential flaws inherent in qualitative sources is the utilization of inductive reasoning. In other words, a scholar may assume that because he spoke to someone utilizing a Slavic dialect, for instance, that that individual is a Slav either culturally or ethnically. Or say that a villager tells a scholar that his village only contains Albanian-speakers and the scholar fails to validate this in his/her travels. These are things that need to be questioned and verified instead of being disregarded as "OR speculation". Like I said, a reliable source needs to have accurate data in order for it to be reliable. Otherwise, it's worthless.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all forms of qualitative evidence are based on inductive reasoning. However, qualitative sources that lack some degree of quantitative data must be questioned. No one can accept a scholar who qualitatively studies certain areas and establishes language-based geographical generalizations that extend beyond the areas he/she studied.

Given the fact that there are Greeks who speak multiple different languages, it is hard to develop an accurate map purely on linguistics alone. Therefore, it is essential to fall back to quantitative forms of data that include parameters that actually count and verify the number of Greek, non-Greek, bi-lingual, tri-lingual, etc. speakers in any given area.

Future, you need quantitative evidence in order to check whether or not your qualitative sources are in fact accurate. If qualitative sources have too many unchecked variables and merely take things for granted, then there is no accurate way for them to help users like you develop linguistic maps. Deucalionite (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what are you on about? But of course these people are mostly bilingual. Probably all of them, today. Nobody has ever claimed the contrary. And the sources don't provide exact count because it wasn't their fucking job to do a nation-wide census single-handedly. What the heck do you expect? Some of the sources do contain numeric estimates though. But they are pretty irrelevant. And why are you still ranting on about ethnic groups? Neither this map nor its sources make any claims about those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to calm down. I understand how much this map means to you, but you must "live up to your character" as a disinterested administrator. Don't disappoint me.

Second, most of your sources lack statistical data. Without this, there is no accurate way for you to quantitatively verify your qualitative sources.

Third, I never expected any scholar to conduct entire nation-wide censuses in order to validate their qualitative assessments. However, you are wrong to excuse modern scholars from conducting proper scientific research in order to validate their empirical interpretations of the various linguistic communities they encountered. Utilizing colorful language does not resolve the problematic issues inherent in the linguistic map you provided.

I am not ranting about ethnic groups. However, I am stressing the point that your map can be construed by readers and users alike beyond the linguistic parameters it supposedly adheres to.

You claim that the numerical estimates that some of your sources provide are irrelevant. If that is the case, then you are admitting that there is barely any viable quantitative data that can substantiate anything in the qualitative data.

Future, I don't want to see you walk away with the Furies beside you. However, you have three options and please do not construe them as threats or belittling rhetoric. First, you can remove the map yourself and realize that purely qualitative sources aren't enough to establish substantive facts without some quantitative data. Second, you can make improvements to the map and have all the users here review them until everyone reaches a logical compromise. Or, you can continue to be stubborn and have users here vote to either remove the map or simply ask that another administrator replace you during these discussions.

Before doing anything, take a deep breath and relax. Deucalionite (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you come to a decision? Deucalionite (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What reliable sources? That's what the whole discussion is about. You shall adress the question about the citations of the map and it's questionable scientific accurancy. B-A-S-E-D I-N W-H-A-T C-E-N-S-U-S-E-S/N-U-M-B-E-R-S/M-E-T-H-O-T-H-O-L-O-G-Y D-I-D Y-O-Y D-R-E-W T-H-E M-A-P -?-

HOW A LINGUISTIC MAP CAN BE DRAWN WITHOUT KNOWING THE EXACT NUMBERS? WHY THE BORDER LINE IS 2 CM NORTH AND NOT WEST OR EAST? AND IF YOU SUPPOSEDLY TRIED TO CREATE A MAP ABOUT THE LINGUISTIC MINORITIES OF THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY THEN WHAT THE FUCK HAS THIS TO DO IN THE PAGE OF THE MODERN GREEK STATE? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all know you didn't hear that. You don't need to shout to make this understood. If you don't want to understand, you obviously won't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Tzimiskes. This isn't a bar fight. Give Future Perfect a chance to provide us with accurate scientific data to prove his claims. Deucalionite (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Traditional" is temporally vague

The current caption of the language map reads "Traditional locations of non-Greek language communities in Greece", but that is problematic as it is vague in the temporal sense. What does "traditional" mean here? To the casual Wikipedia reader, "traditional" could mean anything, including the Ottoman empire, the middle ages, even ancient Greece. The map appears to be primarily based on a version found in Ethnologue, but that map is also not dated. The Ethnologoue map would appear to represent the linguistic situation as it was in the late 19th/early 20th century, and not the present (the areas of Slavic, Arvanitic and Aromanian would have greatly shrunk since then). That being the case, then I propose changing the caption to something like "Distribution of non-Greek languages in Greece during the late 19th/early 20th century" Which brings us to the second problem: Why does a map showing language distribution of the past belong here? To me, what would make a lot more sense would be a similar map showing the current distribution of minority languages, at the start of the 21st century. A great deal of linguistic assimilation has occured in the 20th century in Greece, and this is important and wikipedia readers should be informed of this. So here's what I propose: A map of the current language situation in this article, and the "traditional" map in Minorities in Greece. Other Greek languages, such as Tsakonian and Pontic should also be included for completeness. Stylistically speaking, I propose the current style, as it is more informative and less vague than the "circles" option. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the text yesterday to explain just this fact about assimilation. But in order to understand the assimilation process, the reader still needs to see a map of this kind, to understand the extent of it, i.e. what areas it has applied to. I take the point about the vagueness of the term "traditional" (finally, a point of criticism that makes some sense. At last.) What I meant with "traditional", and what all those late-20th century sources essentially seem to describe, is basically: "within living memory": i.e. the language was active as a community language in everyday life at least until a few decades ago, and at least one generation of speakers who learned the language at the time it was still active is still there now (or was there when scholars last looked). In that sense, it is not a map of a past situation, but indeed of the present. I couldn't think of a better short characterisation, if anyone has a better suggestion for the wording of the caption, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While there has been recent immigration (mostly Albanians) your perception of "assimilation" of minorities is way off. You seem to be under the flawed FYROM-nationalist promoted impression that Greeks that speak other languages or immigrated from other nations should be considered minorities when they themselves identify as Greeks. Greeks lived in Albania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (part of which now is FYROM) and a bunch of other nations in the region. This is because they once used to own a great deal more property in the region. As the modern Greek nation was formed many of these people moved to Greece while non-Greeks moved back to their native nations (not too unlike Aliyah in Israel over the last 60 years). The biggest population transitions in the 20th century occuring at the end of the Balkan Wars and with Turkey with the Treaty of Lausanne.

Some Bulgarians did assimilate into Greek society in Macedonia rather than leave. (who eventually called themselves "Macedonians" along with other Greeks since they lived in Macedonia Greece) While there is mention of non-Greek Macedonians prior to this period (a small number of Bulgarians that identified with the region like IMRO members) the vast majority of the non-Greek slavic "Macedonian" identity (in Greece) was formed around the communist Greek civil war (which was supported by both Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union). The communists that identified with Yugoslavian region that was renamed by Tito from Vardar into the People's Republic of Macedonia were viewed as an existential/irredentist threat to Greece and were perminently ejected.

Since that time though (60 years ago) there has remained only a small community of FYROM sympathetic nationals in mostly the Florina region of Greece (pop. 17 thousand and only a small fraction of which identify with FYROM) and a few others scattered around Greece. That's about it. Enough to fill a large banquet hall... and certainly not worth the massive attention you give them. It's not even close to the dimensions of your absurd homemade map based more on (even then arguably) 19th century demographics.

Get this through your head because we are tired of repeating ourselves. Most Greek citizens that speak other languages in Greece AREN'T an ethnic minority. They view themselves as ethnic Greeks exactly as the PM of Greece has stated. The Rainbow party results of a paltry 3000 should make that pretty clear to someone interested in facts... as should hundreds of thousands of Macedonian Greeks protesting against FYROM in Thessaloníki (not "Solun' as you map above shows) a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately it is difficult to get those facts through to Wikipedia contributers so "neutral" that they like constantly make patronizing statements to Greek contributers like "finally, a point of criticism that makes some sense. At last". Like my criticism that your map wasn't created using scientific methods doesn't make any sense at all to you? What was used to generate those stats of the map? Ouija boards? --Crossthets (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My god the lack of number isn't a problem but the definition of the word traditional is. What a cheap attempt to get around the core of the problem and discuss the "unimportant" details about the text. I agree with the above. I guess FP isn't the only admin in wiki. A second opinion by an admin is needed. Unfortunately despite using arguments, it seems we hit wall here. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Future Perfect: The way you've re-worded is indeed somewhat of an improvement, but the basic problem is still there. "Within living memory" is also vague, although it can pretty much be taken to mean the late first half of the 20th century. So I would propose something along the lines of "Distribution on non-Greek languages in Greece in the early 20th century" for the caption. I also cannot possibly see how the map represents the current situation. It can be thought of as representing the situation that gave rise to the present situation, but certainly not the present. There is a difference between being a native speaker of a language and being a non-speaker who grew up with a minority language spoken at home. The casual reader that sees this map will assume that Arvanitika is still widely spoken in Attica and that Bulgarian is still spoken across large swathes of northern Greece, right up to Thessaloniki. Surely that is not the case. While the historical background to minority languages in Greece certainly is important I feel that this subject would be better treated in Minorities in Greece and that we need not go into so much detail in this article. Thus, while I find the Ethnologue-based map interesting and useful, I feel that for this particular article, a map showing the current linguistic situation would be more appropriate. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"within living memory"... interesting! Half of Poland is German-speaking "within living memory"; the whole Israeli state is Arabic-speaking "within living memory"; half of Turkey is Greek-speaking "within living memory"; and so on. (Don't expect to see a similar map on these countries' main articles, unless the Germans, the Palestinians, the Greeks are patronized by persistent users, as is the case of FYROM). I wonder what else Future Perfect will come up with to have his map remain in this page! I repeat once more: the map is a historical one, false in many aspects, politically motivated as is obvious, and has no place in this page. --Hectorian (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have hit the nail right on the head Hectorian. Deucalionite (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Albanian in Florina

Just because the issue of the Albanophone villages in Florina in the linguistic map was particularly questioned above: Van Boeschoten actually identifies the three villages in question (Riki Van Boeschoten (2001): Usage des langues minoritaires dans les départements de Florina et d’Aridea (Macédoine). Strates online, 10. [19]), as: Drosopigi, Flambouro and Lechovo. In all three of them, Albanian in 1993 was "used by persons over 30, in public and private. Children do not habitually use it, but are able to understand it."

Will update map accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind adding the reference to the articles on Drosopigi, Florina and Lechovo?Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Voting booth"

The reason I've set up this "voting booth" is to help build consensus regarding the linguistic map. All users, of course, can vote even if they have not engaged in any of the lengthy debates in this discussion page. Deucalionite (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia is decided by majority vote. And people who are unable to even understand the nature of the map don't get to decide anything in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Future, building consensus is a perfectly healthy process in Wikipedia. It fosters user confidence and establishes cooperation between editors regardless if they possess divergent views. If administrators can make collective decisions about various issues, then why shouldn't users do the same? It is erroneous for any disinterested administrator to assume that constructive users don't understand an issue well enough for them to make a decision.

Please submit your vote if you feel that the map should be kept. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Fut. Perf.'s statement that nothing on Wikipedia is decided by majority vote. Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:POLLS. Fut. Perf. has answered concerns about the sources, the qualitative nature of the map, and the use of the word "traditional". I have seen little from many participants in this discussion beyond a litany of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This poll suggests nothing more than that Greek users tend not to like the map. We already knew that. Aramgar (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You can cite a million Wikipedia policies and prove your points with eloquence and verve. However, there is currently an impasse regarding a linguistic map. This "voting booth" is meant to put an end to it so that editors can move on with their lives.

Also, if you've read the discussions between Future Perfect and a host of other users you will notice the following things: 1) Both parties curse at each other, 2) Users question Future's reasons for creating map, 3) Future answers, but avoids core issues regarding scientific/quantitative evidence, 4) More cursing by both parties. Let's bring an end to this vicious cycle. Deucalionite (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Users that support keeping the map (Please insert your name and reasons for voting)

• Keep I support the map because it gives a good idea where different linguistic minorities are in Greece. I do agree it's not perfect, but perfection is impossible to attain in creating such kind of maps. Besides, everyone can agree with this: no matter how the map is reformulated somebody will find something to complain about. man with one red shoe (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Users that support removing the map (Please insert your name and reasons for voting)

• Remove. The map is based mostly on qualitative sources that lack demographic and statistical data. Moreover, this map does not accurately reflect modern Greece (2008). Deucalionite (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I do not see the reason for this so disputed (from many points of view) map, to stay in the main Greece article.I believe consensus was built a few weeks ago, but for known reasons this is necessary. I also endorse Hectorian's summaries in this matter, the arguments and reasons he has provided. --Michael X the White (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. This map has nothing to do with present day Greece. It contains errors and is politically motivated; it is pushed to become a sui generis case for Greece and overestimates the strength of certain linguistic minority groups with no demographic base. Not a single reason for it to be kept. --Hectorian (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. This map is just a political statement from the various so-called minorities trying to change the status-quo. No encyclopedic value at all and I haven't seen any convincing data supporting its existence. Walnutjk (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I'm one of those who like languages, so this vote may seem as a surprise. However, in this particular case, there is a mistaken association of minority groups versus minority languages. The section is titled "Minorities", aka "ethnic minorities", and certainly NOT "linguistic minorities". Therefore the map should show ethnic minorities (and not "linguistic" ones), but there is no source for such a map (apart from the Muslim minority). The whole idea of the map contradicts the existing well-sourced text which says that "Members of these groups ethnically identify as Greeks", therefore they are not an ethnic minority, in sharp contrast to the section title and the whole article. Linguistic minorities are (at best) a sub-section of the ethnic ones, and any association of the two is simply WP:OR (which it isn't even that because the opposite is sourced!) and therefore it is WP:UNDUE in this article. Sorry Fut. NikoSilver 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Unscientific._ --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "minority" in English covers ethnic, linguistic and other minorities all alike, as does our coverage both in the detail article and here. Of course these groups are minorities. You need to step away from the shadows of those ideological over sensitivities that people in Greece have about the term. If you want to change our usage of the term minority, you'd have to change the articles first, not the map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you regard users who question your contributions as possessing "ideological oversensitivities"? I could understand if you are defensive about content-based contributions. However, I don't see why you are so invested in a linguistic image that is based mostly on qualitative data.

I am beginning to think that you don't really care about helping users improve the article. Is it hard for you to admit that you are not always right about everything? Is it possible that your map could actually be wrong and that no one at this point cares about ideology when there is no scientific data to substantiate your map? Please refrain from making unnecessary comments. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @Fut: Oh, I am "away". "Minority" in English and in every other language, when listed as a subsection under the "Demographics" section, refers to just that: ethnic minorities. There's no parallel map in any other article that I know, even in countries with substantial minorities and with substantial sourcing about the ethnic (moreover linguistic!) maps of these minorities. I admire your work in creating that map and I would find it very useful for the highly applicable Languages of Greece article and (less for) the Minorities in Greece article; but not for "Greece". Bad people could say the same: "You need to step away from the oversensitivities of the linguists who try to overemphasize their field of expertise as an issue worth mentioning in a main country article..." :-) NikoSilver 22:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Minority [...] refers to just that: ethnic minorities"?? No. It just doesn't. You are wrong. The very text of our articles is a testimonial that we have not been using the term in this restrictive sense. And people elsewhere don't either. A demography section is the exact right place for treating linguistic minorities, together with others. Just like other country articles do, no matter whether they use maps to support that treatment or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time you accepted you were wrong? :-P Let's see: We have under "Demographics" the following sections: "Minorities", "Immigration", "Religion" and "Education", but we don't have a "Languages" section (which could arguably be wrong since we have an article), yet we do have a map that would marginally belong to that section! LOL, could it be that you're just too fond of the map you created and want to post it wherever possible? (Already in 3 articles, keep going!) NikoSilver 23:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the map in this article, if I remember correctly. I'm totally open to having a reasonable debate, with reasonable people, about whether it's necessary or useful in this place or whether its scope is the most appropriate for this article. I do count you among those reasonable people; I just happen to disagree with this particular argument (the "demography" section has a "minorities" section, which very rightly also treats minority languages, nothing wrong about that.) The problem is that the discussion has been hijacked by a gang of clowns who are stubbornly insisting on misreading, misrepresenting and distorting everything the map is about; as long as these people are involved, no rational discussion is possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and the same to you. I totally understand the feeling of having to support something against a "gang of clowns" who want to "hijack it"; sometimes it creates a feeling of unnecessary overprotection for that something. I hope you haven't been influenced to that point. Now, given that the map doesn't exist as is anywhere in the literature, apart from sourced yet combined verbal vague descriptions from different scholars, given that it doesn't exist in any other country's main article-even those with significant minorities-, given that it refers to a tiny bit of the population yet is advertised like one of the most important things in the country, given that it refers primarily to languages and explicitly (sourced) NOT to ethnic groups yet it is perceived as a map of ethnic minorities where it is located, could we please just let it exist only in the relevant sub-articles and let mother Greece become "pure" again, to the sad side-effect of creating joy to all nationalists-with-an-ax-to-grind who have so much pissed you? ;-) NikoSilver 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is no more OR than a textual description would be that would summarise these findings from the literature. See, you did it again. As long as arguments about the appropriateness of the map (in terms of topic and scope), which may very well be reasonable, are mixed in with baseless accusations about its correctness, you will not find me in agreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you knew I knew that, that's why I added the "arguably-possibly-marginally". What this means to say, is not that the map is unsourced (God-forbid, would never dare say that to thee Sir :-X). It means that if there was at least one reliable linguist out there having dealt with that matter to the point of creating a relevant map (which would be easy, yet nobody has bothered to do it), then this map should stand a chance in deserving a place on the main country article (still marginally). For now, it is too technical, too detailed, too-much-trouble-for-so-little-academic-interest, if you get what I mean... NikoSilver 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I love this guy [NikoSilver]. So what do you say Future? Deucalionite (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Future, I think the so-called "clowns" asked you multiple times to provide quantitative data. They're still waiting. Deucalionite (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The clowns can go on playing with their red herrings as much as they like, thank you very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you being irrational about this? I think the "clowns" know that you're deliberately using the "red herrings" card to avoid admitting that you have barely any quantitative data to substantiate your map. Let's not forget that instead of proving your points you mostly engaged in colorful shouting matches with individuals who only agitated you further. Instead of calling another administrator to take your place, or taking a wiki-break, or providing quantitative data, you just continued debating as if your life depended on it. Deucalionite (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then could you please explain why the Ethnologue reference you cited states, for speakers of Arvanitika, that "Young people are migrating to Athens and assimilating as Greeks." There is an obvious ethnic connotation in the statement since the term "Greek-speakers" is not used. Even though I found some numerical data in your source, I couldn't find any information regarding the scientific parameters/methodologies utilized in producing it. Overall, your map appears to imply through your sources that "linguistic minorities" are the same as "ethnic minorities" (when such correlations are inaccurate in Greece both historically and today). Deucalionite (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have said it before and I will repeat it again: in my opinion Future Perfect used a variety of sources, few of which (if any) analyses the methods used to obtain the figures they present as facts. From each source he used the largest area possible for each minority language, irrespectively of whether it is still spoken there/was spoken there. If there existed sources about the languages that will be spoken somewhere in Greece, these areas would also be included. The latest example is the "update of the map to "represent" the three (as we all, Greeks, know...) Albanian speaking villages of Florina; for a few elder speakers in each (those who remained in the said villages and are now over 50, since the data refear to those over 30 in 1993); a dot was not enough... there had to be 3 dots-the more the better! As much as it gets to represent Greece as the most diverse country in Europe. Beware: it is all about Greece; no other country needs to have such a map. FYROM is less diverse and its minorities (of every kind) are not obvious enough to intrigue a map-maker to depict them. Of course, whoever has ever been in Greece knows that the reality has nothing to do with this map. And when someone criticises the map and asks for its removal, is deemed slave of "ideological oversensitivities" that the Greeks, according to the creator of the map, have about their minorities. The map indirectly leads people to believe that linguistic=ethnic, not because it is in the section "Minorities" (in general), but also in more disguised was: the term Pomak on this map is a clear example. Need I talk more about the political motivations behind this map? I think I was clear enough. --Hectorian (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Fut: You do not need to get further influenced by the sad comments which are piling up against you at an unbelievable rate. If only my young compatriots had a small sense of diplomacy, they would immediately understand they are working against their own cause. I'd remove the comments or parts of comments I find unhelpful, but I'm sure I'd be misunderstood from both sides, as I am also sure you can put them aside and work on the topic at hand. I suggest we rest because it's kinda late and tomorrow we deal with this with a fresh set of brain hemispheres... NikoSilver 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove For reasons adressed here [20] Kapnisma ? 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Without an explanation of what statistical methods were used to create it and actual numbers of speakers it's clearly an unscientific map and few (if any) countries in Wikipedia currently show such a poorly researched "minority language" map on their main page. The maker of homemade map also has another unscientific non-peer reviewed homemade map on the Slavic Languages of Greece page that references Thessaloniki Greece as Solun in brackets (a term that FYROM nationalists use to describe it) and seems to show wildly inflated representation of FYRoM-related Slavic language speakers in Macedonia Greece. (The Rainbow Party of Greece that represents FYROM/RoM nationals in Greece received less than 3000 votes during their last election) One of the secondary map's sources was also "coincidentally" helped by the FYROM/RoM government. I would also note the US Congress introduced bills last year condemning FYROM nationals for hostility and propaganda against Greece. (including one in the Senate co-sponsored by Obama) --Crossthets (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC) A point I'd also like to add. There appears to be a tendency by the admin mapmaker to refer to Greek Wikipedia contributers as "nationalists" or portray them as xenophobic (seemingly to distract the issue away from his long history of questionable edits against Greeks). For instance, in the comments above he refers to the Greek contributers that are against the map as a "gang of clowns". Presumably such rude comments are not standard etiquette for Wikipedia admins who allegedly are supposed to maintain a NPOV and maintain high standards of civility. --Crossthets (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to express my gratification for removing the ambiguous map from the main article of Greece. Although it should had never been put in the first place, it is nice to know that the article is being under ongoing improvement. And not to forget to thank the editor who removed the greek salad portrayed next to Hermes.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Users that support revising the map (Please insert your name and reasons for voting)

• Revise. In this article, map should show the present, not this "traditional" business. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Second most industrious "in the world"

Changed it to second most industrious between OECD countries as stated in the forbes article. Basiljabber (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

history

Other Prehellenic cultures must be quoted : the Cycladic culture in the Cyclades (3rd millennium BC) which is considered as the first power in the Aegaean, and in the north of Greece the first culture with quite large towns . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert.la-marle (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Change

Someone should change the HDI ranking in the Economy section to reflect the recent changes. Its No 18 not No 24. Thanks77.83.47.167 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

from where name ancient Greece?

Can somebody tell me did the name Greece come from? I can't discover? There is no such name in the past.So how can I tell that in the past there was an ancient Greece on balkan.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koloncanec87 MKD (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Greece, Graeci (Greeks) is the latin form of the greek "hellenes". The Latins took this name from the Epirotan tribe of Selloi who were also called Graikoi (Γραικοί) (Aristotle's Meteorologics) . It's similar to the Eastern peoples calling Greeks Yunan from the tribe of Iones.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Koloncancer. Greece never existed – it's nothing but a figment of the rest of the world's imagination. There was only ever a Makedonija ruled by an Aleksandar Makedonski who spread the Slavic (or not, depending on which Macedonist you ask) language to the far corners of the known world. It is the same Macedonian language of the Rosetta Stone, which Greek propagandists have labelled Demotic Egyptian in order to hide The Truth. Shame on them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I swear, you should be awarded a barnstar for your sarcasm Kekrops. It's pretty much legendary as far as everyone is concerned. I'm so jealous. :) Deucalionite (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An inappropriate use of the word "heir"

The second sentence of the second paragraph reads: "It(Greece) is heir to the heritages of ancient Greece, the Roman and Byzantine Empires,[5] and nearly four centuries of Ottoman rule." The word heir applies to a person. For a state it is more appropriate to use the word "successor". Unfortunately Greece is not a legal successor of neither of the mentioned states, so I suggest we rethink this sentence completely. I'll modify it slightly for the moment, until we come up with a good solution. --GStojanov (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite it in any way you like. I think that particular expression comes from an old plagiarised wording from Britannica, which has been sitting around for ages and should be cleaned out anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would propose “acquire” as more appropriate word instead of “heir” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.26.161 (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this will work: "It boasts, not unchallenged, the Hellenic and Byzantine heritages." I removed the Ottoman heritage, since I don't think Greeks boast that part of their heritage, then I combined Roman and Byzantine into Byzantine, then instead of ancient Greece I think it is more appropriate to use Hellenic, since ancient Greece never existed as a state in the antiquity. --GStojanov (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to add this POV disclaimer. man with one red shoe 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Our dear northern neighbour, it is so obvious this was your problem all along, why did you start with this "heir" nonsense? --Avg (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you were refering to me, the "heir" sentence was in the article. I didn't put it there. I tried to modify the sentence, so it will make more sense, but someone (Kerkiros?) deleted it alltogether. Thats ok too, since the History section below covers the subject better. --GStojanov (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Why is it not explained the meaning of the name `Hellas`? The ancient world did not call it Hellas for anything... it is `The Land Of Light`. 87.219.85.92 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita in infobox needs to be updated

The GDP per capita figure needs to be updated to reflect 2008 estimates and match this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. The figure must be $ 30,661. 77.83.166.161 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update those info? FDAU (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Regarding the anthem in the Info Box, shouldn't it read "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleftherían", as opposed to "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleutherían"? The modern Greek transliteration of the letter upsilon is an "f" sound when preceeding an epsilon (which is pronounced like an "e"). 82.34.206.224 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Δοκιμαστικός Τίτλος

Αυτό ειναι το περιεχόμενο της συγκεκριμένης ενότητας. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skammas (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM

I'm sorry to open an old can of worms, but why does this article refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM"? The fact that Greece recognizes this country by the latter doesn't mean that we have to go against WP:MOSMAC and Wikipedia tradition for this particular article. The few exceptions when we do refer to that country as "FYROM" on Wikipedia are not present here. This is not an article e.g. about an institution where the Republic of Macedonia is a member under the name of FYROM. The sentence [Greece] has borders with (...) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to the north is thus inadequate. Húsönd 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia/Editing Notes for Macedonian articles which may be relevant. dougweller (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not really. Húsönd 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever name is displayed it should not be a redirect.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a problem here. But I agree that the use of "former Yugoslav" in this and similar articles should be phased out. There never was either a well-based consensus or a rational justification for it. It was all a matter of the insistence of some Greek editors of having Greece-related articles stand apart from all the rest, as an "island in its own reality", using a naming practice more sympathetic to the Greek POV concerns. A practice that is fundamentally at odds with the demands of NPOV. We don't follow X's naming preference about Y, just because we are in an article about X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, we don't even follow X's naming preference about X itself... why should we follow the POV about Y? man with one red shoe 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. It is no news that Greek editors who are naturally involved with this article would dread to see the Republic of Macedonia being referred to by any name but "FYROM". But this article is simply not within the range of exceptions when we do use "FYROM". Greek users can stick to FYROM on the Greek Wikipedia where they are obviously the majority, but not here. Húsönd 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC mentions for articles referring to Greek internal affairs "If in doubt, leave as is". Well, leave as is. End of story.--Avg (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC is dead. It failed to reach consensus over precisely this point. Yes, there was a time when it made sense to leave this one area just open and not touch it. But that doesn't mean we are forever doomed to keep it that way. We finally got some outside opinion from people other than the usual suspects. Not surprisingly, that opinion is in favour of policy. So, I think the time to simply enforce policy and stop the political bargains has come. People who choose to edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut. you're vandalising the page against consensus. You will be reported if you continue.--Avg (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Have fun. My edits aren't "vandalism", and a determined small national faction of POV-pushers against policy isn't "consensus". Wikipedia policy on standard naming practices is actually quite clear, and actually enforceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have fun all right, especially with the diifs where YOU support what you now deny. Let's see, will you find an oversight fast enough?--Avg (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)