Talk:Greece

Edit request

Events that happened after 2000 are listed under "20th Century". This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.162.6 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"A developed country with an advanced,[14][15] high-income economy .." Time to re-write this characterization of the country's economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the economic crisis makes Greece (1) a non-advanced and (2) low-income economy. The Greek economy -despite the state's inability to collect taxes effectively and other problems- is indeed an advanced one. Even in the current crisis, it is ranked in the top 35 in the world. Additionally, a high-income economy is one whose Gross National Income is more than US$12,000. --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Name Dispute

Greece boarders FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Check the United Nations this is how they are recognized. So when the UN accepts the change the whole world will too!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro2004 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. No one cares about this bizarre Greek obsession. From the Republic of Macedonia article:

"most United Nations member countries have abandoned the provisional reference [i.e. FYROM] and have recognised the country as the Republic of Macedonia instead. These include four of the five permanent UN Security Council members—the United States, (ref:"US snubs Greece over Macedonia". BBC News Online. 4 November 2004. Retrieved 2006-10-01.) Russia, United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China; several members of the European Union such as Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovenia; and over 100 other UN members. (Ref: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Opinion/comm_20050916Tziampiris.html Naming the solution, Kathimerini English edition, 16 September 2005)"

DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

hardly a "bizarre obsession", please refer to the ministry of external affairs for a complete analysis of the Greek POV here before making such vague statements.
In any case, this article is on the English wikipedia and therefore the more widely recognized Macedonia (Republic of) will be used, instead of the pro-Greek Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You will notice that there is extensive use of simply Macedonia, which links to Macedonia (Greece), but there are also a few links to Republic of Macedonia to differentiate the two. This has been discussed endless times before, lets not start one of those really long discussions again. Philly boy92 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That what was my point, so there was no reason for you to post and thereby increase the chances of it turning into "one of those really long discussions again". And by the way, I am fully aware of the Greek governement position on this and equally fully entitled to call it a bizarre Greek obsession if that is my opinion, which it is. DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre, huh? If only was that simple... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The name dispute is quite relevent when the map on the profile of Greece has Rep. Macedonia instead of F.Y.R.O.M, it suggests that wikipedia is politically motivated in doing so... furthermore it is offensive to Greeks from Macedonia and wikipedia should strictly use the title of F.Y.R.O.M instead of Rep. Macedonia, as recognised by the UN, due to the international nature of the site as well as its policy of "neutrality". Picking Republic of Macedonia is taking sides UN regulation is the norm. 92.236.81.144 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)ΑΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΙΣ

No, "Republic of Macedonia" is the norm - see this which is why Wikipedia follows the naming policy most generally accepted globally. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). -- Philly boy92 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC

after reading "the see this" section it only reaffirms that FYROM is the norm and the fact that many countries have recognised it in bilateral relations as Rep. Macedonia dose not mean that they have recognised it in international talks as even the US reffers to FYROM as FYROM in international organisations such as the UN, NATO, WTO etc... Do you need to better understand the procedure and precedent basis of international law, in order to understand that the countries that have recognised FYROM as Rep. Macedonia have done so only on a bilateral basis and not on the intrnational level! so you are wrong and in fact i think you should change the bloody name on the map since the page concerns Greece and not FYROM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.81.144 (talk • contribs) at 00:49, 21 March 2011.

I was one of the referees who oversaw the creation of the current policy regarding the naming of the state self-identified as "Republic of Macedonia". When speaking of using either the acronym "FYROM" or the full title "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to refer to the sovereign state, it was decided that both monikers are unnecessary for the purpose of Wikipedia.

The term "Macedonia" is often ambiguous when referring to subjects related to Greece in some way, as it may be unclear whether it refers to the region, to Greece's northern neighbor, or to something else. Saying simply, for example, "Macedonian cuisine is noted for..." could be very unclear, and would likely require disambiguation (contrast a statement such as "The Macedonian military consists of...", where such confusion is less likely).

The primary (and almost sole) argument against the use of "Republic of Macedonia" was that most (practically all) international organizations refer to the country as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". While we noted this, we also noted that the cause of this almost exclusively lies in the objections of the Greek delegations to the various organizations which the nation styled "Republic of Macedonia" applied for membership after the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. This, we decided, meant that the UN, NATO, et al. were not implicitly supporting the Greek position in the matter; rather, the foreign ministry of the new nation-state acquiesced to Greece's objections because they (the new country) wished very strongly to join the global community through membership in these organizations as quickly as possible.

Actually, when the policy was being hammered out, the primary debate lay in whether to refer to the country as "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia". As I said before, the arguments for using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" because of the UN, NATO, etc. seemed at best to be founded on very shaky ground. Other reasons, such as historical perspective, were (at least in my own opinion) far beyond our ability to accurately judge, and in any case are not really relevant to the issue at hand (a simple style guide).

In the end,

1. Nearly all common English-language press and literature refers to the country as either "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia".
2. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM" are practically never used in common English speech or literature. Some, most notably Google Maps and some other similar services, use "Macedonia (FYROM)" , but almost never "FYROM" by itself.
3. "Republic of Macedonia" is the direct English translation of the country's official self-identification, Република Македонија.
4. The term "Republic of Macedonia" is sufficient to prevent any confusion of terms.
5. Of the countries which have diplomatic relationships with the state, the majority refer to the country as "Republic of Macedonia". Of the remaining countries, the vast majority do not have a clear stance on the issue, with relatively few explicitly referring to it as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

Given these, and noting that the purpose of a style guide is to facilitate readability, not further an international political dispute, we decided that it would be most consistent and accurate to refer to the country as either "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia" is unambiguous situations. "FYROM" and its expansion were deemed unnecessary, and therefore, we recommended that they not be used.

Now, I have no desire to reopen a very old can of worms by saying all this. I view the issue as closed, and I do not wish to engage in a lengthy argument about the problem. I merely wish to state that I feel the rationale behind the style guide is reasonable and justified, and to explore the reasons for which the style guide was written the way it was. Political motivation had nothing to do with the decision at all. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I do not have any stake in the issue whatsoever. I am a fifth-generation American, with primarily French (note my surname) and German ancestry (some other from northern Europe may be there as well). My own personal view of the issue is that it is rather petty, and I think both sides take themselves too seriously. That is the extent of my personal opinion. From what I can remember of my discussions with the other referees, their stakes and opinions in and on the matter are roughly the same. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful (and interesting) - I've never seen the reasoning spelled out like that. It might be useful to include a summary of it in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia) as it is just a bare statement of style without rationale (or maybe that would just open the can of worms unnecessarily?) DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Google search on FYROM and on Republic of Macedonia brings up the same volume of results. How was the later deemed to be more popular? Country names, like country boarders are claimed by the countries themselves, but are established and legalised by international convention, like the UN. A country might have heroes, but the rest of the world can call them criminals. It is irrelevant if Greece wants to call them Skopians, while they call themselves Macedonians. UN is the arbiter and for the time being, the country's name is FYROM. The less bias wiki is the more accurate it will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.241.16 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A few responses:

• former yugoslav republic of macedonia brings up ~7,400,000 results.
• republic of macedonia brings up ~36,600,000 results.

If you enclose the terms in quotes, the latter falls dramatically, but this fails to account for the fact that the nation-state self-identifying as 'Republic of Macedonia' is most often referred to in English as simply 'Macedonia'. Therefore, there will not be very many mentions of the official name, because to most English speakers, there is no need to differentiate 'macedonia', as it rarely refers to anything other than the modern nation-state in most contexts. I was unable to formulate a query for 'macedonia' that removed mentions to the historic state led by Alexander, or the modern Greek region, etc., so I was unable to determine the distribution of that term. However, a news query for 'macedonia' returns a vast number of articles referring to the country, and practically none for anything else (I saw a few references to the ancient kingdom).

With regard to the terms in quotes, you must note that ALL (as in 100%) of the results returned for the exact phrase "republic of macedonia" will also be returned in a query for the exact phrase "former yugoslav republic of macedonia", so this data is poisoned and useless. Finally, Google's algorithm has apparently realized what "fyrom" means, as searching for "fyrom" returns practically identical results as 'former yugoslav republic of macedonia'.

If you are interested, I answered this notion a few months ago on this same page. If you scroll a bit above your comment, you will find what is probably a more succinct argument.

With regard to your remarks about the role of the United Nations in this problem, you greatly misunderstand the role which that body plays in the global community of nations. Your statement that "[country] names, like country [borders] are claimed by the countries themselves, but are established and legalised by international convention, like the UN." is completely incorrect. No international body determines what designation nation-states may use or do use for themselves. When extending diplomatic recognition or membership to an international body, it is customary to use the self-identification of the nation-state to refer to that state, but any country or international body is free to use any term they choose, whether or not any other states/bodies use that identifier. Relationships between nation-states (also between nation-states and international bodies) are agreed upon and entered into solely at the consent of both parties, and there is no third party that has the power to interfere with this.

In the specific case of the Republic of Macedonia, the reason for its admission to the United Nations under the term "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is very simple:

1. The state was formed as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and wished to join the community of nations as soon as possible.
2. Currently, one of the best ways to do this is to join the United Nations.
3. Greece adamantly refused to allow the new state to enter with the name "Republic of Macedonia". In order to be admitted, the Macedonian delegation agreed to (what was supposed to be) a temporary compromise (FYROM was, and is, explicitly a "provisional reference". This is why the Macedonian delegation is seated in the General Assembly as if their state's name began with the letter "T").

At the time, the Macedonian delegation (and practically all of the UN member states) apparently believed that a final agreement between Greece and the new state would be reached within a few years, so most states extended recognition using the UN provisional reference. However, it has been nearly twenty years, and no solution has been found, as both nations are refusing to budge. Apparently, many states view Greece's position as unreasonable, so they abandoned the provisional reference, and extended recognition to Macedonia using its constitutional name. The UN has continued to use the reference primarily because (unsurprisingly) Greece would without a doubt object to any attempts to change the UN designation.

In summary, 'macedonia' is the most common term in English for the state constitutionally named 'Republic of Macedonia', and there exists no international body that determines what a country is referred to as. Even if the United Nations did do this, it has explicitly stated that 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' is provisional, so there is no doubt that the name would not be used. Furthermore, if a state's name was determined by "international convention", the state's name would be "Republic of Macedonia", as the majority of nations use "Republic of Macedonia" to in bilateral relations. Also, see the comment I made on 21 March. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your search for Republic of Macedonia with no quotes brought so many results because most of them was for "Republic" only. Criticising Google’s algorithms when we don’t even understand how simple searches work is a bit too much!

Every country can call themselves whatever they want. Other countries will call them whatever the UN calls these countries. UN usually calls them whatever the countries want to be called, except if there is a dispute between them and another country. Then, the UN plays the roll of the arbiter, which is why it was created for.

When the new country of FYROM wanted to be called a name used in a Greek region, UN gave them a temporary name until they resolve the issue. The fact that FYROM is been using the name of the Greek region for its own name does not make it right or legal. FYROM has dug in its 20 year old leg and try to stick with the name, and so has Greece with its 10000 old leg. Good stupid fun. But the best unbiased name for wiki is the one that UN is using. Anything else will be disputed for ever. If wiki is about knowledge and not debate, then the UN should be followed.

In my eyes, this wiki choice is bias. Try this argument: “I won’t be surprise if donations from US government was given to wiki with specific instructions. US loves placing footholds in areas, like Turkey, for their controlling games. US grasped the opportunity to control FYROM from its birth, that is why they recognised them with the name they wanted, ignoring then UN, like they did with Iraq.” As I said, wiki should not be bias or judgmental. UN is the law and wiki should follow it or else it will appear as bias. It would have been so simple and clean. Now wiki appears as it knows better than the UN, the International Court of Justice in Hague and any other of the thousand lawyers trying to resolve this. This small group of wiki fans thought they knew better. Bit rude? It just doesn't look good or right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.192.192 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for republic brings up totally different results from a search for republic of macedonia. There is no error in my conclusions there.

"Other countries will call them whatever the UN calls these countries. UN usually calls them whatever the countries want to be called, except if there is a dispute between them and another country. Then, the UN plays the roll of the arbiter, which is why it was created for." I already explained that this is patently false. If you do not listen to me, there is nothing I can do. Countries call other nations whatever they want to. As evidence, see this: "[As of] 18 January 2011, 131 countries use the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia.[156]" The UN does not have power to arbitrate anything, it can only mediate, as there is no way for the UN itself to force countries to do anything (although it can and does recommend courses of action, and these are usually followed by most members, there is no requirement for them to do so).

The United States government does not offer Wikipedia money to do anything. In the case of the issue at hand, the decision was formed by after a lengthy and detailed public discussion by public request of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. A team of three referees (of which I was one) reviewed the arguments and came to a final decision, which was implemented and posted on the first page I linked there. To come to our decision as neutrally as possible, all three of us reviewed the arguments independently, drew our conclusions, and then compared notes. If I remember correctly, we all reached the same conclusions with regard to all the issues. Therefore, if the United States wanted to "pay off" anyone in order to influence that discussion, someone would have had to approach me at some point during the time arguments were posted. This never happened, and no one attempted to contact me privately in order to influence my decision. Indeed, the primary argument at the time revolved around whether to name the article simply Macedonia, instead of Republic of Macedonia. Given that we decided the latter (which is more favorable to the Greek position than having the modern country's article at Macedonia instead of that page being a disambiguation page), are you suggesting that someone from the Greek government paid us off to do that? This is aside from the fact that I can think of no reason for the United States to care at all about the issue in the first place. Officially recognizing the nation as "Republic of Macedonia" would have a far, FAR greater effect than anything they could do on a mere website. I don't think you truly understand how little anyone outside of your countries really cares about the problem. I can honestly say without any hesitation that I. do. not. care. I made my recommendation that we not use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" based on the fact that no one in the English press ever refers to the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". They use "Macedonia" practically 100% of the time, but I still think the term is ambiguous enough that it is better to have the article at "Republic of Macedonia".

Unless you can come up with a new argument, this is the extent of my replies to this current thread. You are obviously not reading anything that I am writing, and I have heard every one of your arguments scores of times over the past couple of years. Each time, I reply with the exact same thing, and no one ever reads a damn thing I say. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ok this is becoming really stupid and -quite frankly- annoying. Before accusing people of being bribed by the CIA or something consider for a moment that if you dont like how wikipedia operates, no one is forcing you to use wikipedia. This has been discussed time and time again. Greece does not have exclusive rights to the word 'Macedonia' so just get over it and move on with your life, and stop filling wikipedia's servers with mindless comments about the US bribing wikipedia to choose 'Macedonia' over FYROM. The way you speak about this is as if the US government uses wikipedia to plan its foreign policy. Get over it people. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would reiterate how little anyone outside of your countries really cares about the problem. All neutral observers understand and appreciate what you (J.delanoy) have written. I'm afraid that those with a certain agenda aren't interested in what you have to say and, sadly, it probably is pointless trying to explain it to them. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is evident by the way you mediators respond to my comments that you are not able to reach to an independent and evidence based conclusion. You twisted my comments, you assumed my ethnicity and wrote in bold that "you don't care". I just offered you my 5 cents, you go ahead and play your silly games, you powerful wikipuppet masters. Seriously!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.192.192 (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus in Europe on what to Call FYROM. / R Macedonia or in the world. Most the Med countries like Greece use Fyrom (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France etc) where as the UK/ Turkey/ USA use 'Macedonia.' Greece uses Fyrom, like Nato, UN, Uefa, EU, FIFA etc however, after many wars and many bizarre arguments like Google hits etc, all this has been ignored and instead of finding a neutral position, certain editors have created a norm of doing what the USA and UK do, calling the country 'Macedonia.' Therefore until Wiki gets some neutral editors, Greece will have to use 'Macedonia' to comply with what the country calls itself, not what the worlds biggest organisations use, FYROM.. Reaper7 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Ethicity groups in Greece

On what basis the percentage of 4% of Albanian ethnic population is attributed to Greece ? Although this percentage is presented as reliable information, there is no apparent source to support this claim. The 4% figure should be revised as there is no such minority in this country. Temporary foreign workers with Albanian passports or unauthorized immigrants of the same ethnicity should not be confused with resident ethnic groups, as this assumption may consist a serious challenge of the actual identity of the Greek population today and at the same time may put in question the impartiality of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COSKAND (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

'Ethnic groups' refers to the dominant ethnic groups in the country, and language is one means of determining it. Eurostat reports that 8.3% of the population is non-Greek, i.e. of a foreign nationality or ethnic group residing within the country. This is also backed by the CIA World Factbook, which states that 7% of the population are non-Greeks. Additionally, the National Statistics Agency of Greece reports that there are 761813 foreigners, 6.95% of the total population of the country, but that is the 2001 census. The same report lists Albanians at a 4% of the population. 'Ethnic group' does not necessarily mean 'ethnic minority'. While there is a large number of ethnic Albanians in Greece, they do not constitute a 'minority', since they are not Greek citizens. --Philly boy92 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the logic and statistic results coming from the above mentioned services, half of Greece’s population should be foreigners, speaking tens of languages, –at least during the summer months- as the entire country is overwhelmingly invaded by a multitude of millions, consisted by either regular tourists, illegal immigrants, seasonal workers and many other categories of temporary visitors. 'Ethnic groups' should indeed refer to the dominant ETHNIC groups in the country, no doubt that language is one of the main ways of determining them, therefore ETHNICITY statistics should refer ONLY to the registered citizens of the country bearing the country’s passport and if as mentioned, this figure of 4% “does not constitute a 'minority'” , then why is it still appearing in the Wikipedia front page as if a large ETHNIC minority existed among the Greek population ? Is it placed there only to state Albania’s temporary workers for some reason? Please do all necessary to remove this doubtful statistic figure as it seems much bigger than the total of all the permanent ethnic minorities together in the entire country, which sum around 2%.

And yet again we have to face the hardcore Greek policy of "only Greeks live in Greece". This is an encyclopedia and not the international lobby of Greek politics and policies. The number should be kept, since "ethnic groups" means the ethnicities that reside within the country and not the ethnic minorities of the country. Needless to say that your comment about the tourists is completely irrelevant, since Eurostat, the CIA world factbook and the Hellenic National Statistics Agency all talk about people with a permament resident address in Greece, and not seasonal tourists, illegal immigrants or anything similar. --Philly boy92 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That section is referring to the ethnic makeup of those resident in Greece regardless of citizenship. While that may be ambiguous in this article, it is clearer in articles of other countries where there is a much larger percentage of resident foreign nationals.--Ptolion (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It should start with 94% "Greek citizens", "not foreign citizens" or something from the sort beacause most of the ethnic paragraphs in the other countries are about ethnicities and if you read all them together and compare you are becoming totally confused which of them are for ethnicity and which for citizenship. The CIA source exactly says "93.8% Greeks and 7.8% foreign citizens". Pensionero (UTC)

I have edited the Ethnic Groups section to read "Ethnic Groups (by citizenship; 2001)". There is no need to add "Greek Citizens" etc when the links themselves link to Greeks, Albanians etc. Also, boldface is only used on specific cases, before bolding "93.8% Greek" please read Manual of Style: Boldface. As it is not a definition list, boldface is forbidden. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In the page Greeks in the infobox for Greece the number of all citizens is used so the name "Greek citizens" could be used the redirect. I bolded it because in other countries the first ethnic group is bold and as it write in MOS:BOLD table headers can be bolded. Pensionero (UTC)

Table headers yes, but this is not a table, it is a list of ethnicities. The header, which is already bolded, is "Ethnic Groups". I think there is no need to use "Greek citizens", the sidebar already says "by citizenship", therefore the "Greeks" implies "Greek citizenship". --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "Ethnicity" and "citizenship" are two completely different things. Saying "Ethnic groups by citizenship" makes no sense at all. You will also note that three of the four sources used avoid that mistake. Anyway, I don't see why we need four sources to state the same thing, so I will remove the CIA factbook and leave the other 3. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Pensionero, I would be really careful with the reverts if I were you. Athenean (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest here, I don't think there is any reason to include anything related to citizenship. I believe the people who have the problem with the 4% Albanian figure are those who think that only Greeks live in Greece, primarily the nationalists. The infobox is supposed to provide basic information about the country, not detailed information about its ethnic structure. I see no problem with just leaving it as "ethnic groups" and "93.8% Greek, .....". The article makes it clear that firstly Greece is relatively homogenous ethnicity-wise, that it does not recognize minorities (apart from the Turkish one) and that most of the Albanians are immigrants. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups" is fine, it's not what I object to. What I object to is the "Ethnicity by citizenship" nonsense. That makes absolutely no sense. Athenean (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the economic crisis in Greece sadly the vast majority of Albanians have left and returned to Albania as there is no work and they own virtually no property in Greece. Hopefully if Greece begins to recover and the construction sector re-boots they can return. There are countless articles on this and it is very sad. Most the places I have been have no Albanians left and they were never proper residents, but economic immigrants who put down no roots and left. There is no way 4% today anyway. In London for example, you have many ethnic groups who hold British passports and have property and children in London schools with British passports. The Albanians of Greece stayed until the work ran out recently and left. They did not buy property, pay taxes or seek Greek nationality. They only wanted to be paid in Euros, which until the economic crisis was easy in the construction sector. That is not comparable to London/ British Ethnic groups and anyone who has ever set foot in Greece - even as a tourist would have seen the Albanians were temporary workers, not like the Turks of Germany who stayed and bought property in Germany for example. I hope one day the Albanians return en masse because I am not going to pay a Greek to fix my garage and get ripped off!! The CIA world fact book or 11 year old stats, where this 4% figure came from was never true anyway, especially now it is no-where near 4,3%. // The muslims in Northern Greece count as an actual ethnic group because they are actual residents who live, get educated, own property and pray permanently in Greece (hold Greek passports also). Here are some articles on the Albanians returning to Albanian:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/01/us-albania-greece-migrants-idUSTRE6503WB20100601 http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/06/21/feature-06

Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As it known citizenhip groups and ethnic groups are 2 different things and one could be Spanish from Moldova. In Demographics paragraph is already written that 94% were Greek citizens, 4 Albanian and etc. and after that there is no reason this list to remain in the infobox as it only confuses. Naming all Greek citizens ethnic Greeks or Albanian ethnic Albanians or any isn't incorrect for encyclopedia? Pensionero (UTC)

"This figure includes besides ethnic Greeks - also Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians, Romanians and Greek citizens of other ethnic groups which couldn't report their ethnicity." is complete WP:OR, along with most of the edits to the immigration section and should be removed. Athenean (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

^^ agreed. Original research should be removed. I am reverting the page back to its original state before Pensionero's first edit. Any further edits on the matter are highly discouraged until a consensus has been reached here first. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg This map has WP:OR and is clear that some persons of these linguistic minorities, whether few or much have other than Greek self-consciousness and is not disadvantage to write them, I haven't write how many are them just that they exist with obscure number. For the ethnic paragraph in the infobox the most soluble way is to clarify in Demographics how many are Greek, Albanian citizens and etc. and to delete the ethnic paragraph in the infobox beacause Greece haven't counted ethnic groups in the last census and is really paradox to show citizens in ethnic groups whether "by citizenship" is written or not, as you said citizenship and ethnic groups are 2 different things. Pensionero (UTC)

Edit request from Marioka, 17 April 2011

Marioka (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

May I offer some light on the matter. The census of 2001 found that there wew circa 11m citizens living in Greece 98% being Greek and 2% of muslim minority in Thrace Only.The reality is that no other resident was acounted for at the time. Albanians and all other residents (Philipinos, Chinese, Pakistani & Westerners) therefore dont help to make up the 11m figure. There is no doubt that these people are there however and will have to be accounted in addition to the 11m. Therefore the true population in Greece maybe 12m or 13m depending on which report you beleive is the closest to the true figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.210 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ethnic groups

There is no ethnic albanian minority in Hellas. It is not recognized by hellenic constitution. All albanians in Hellas are economic immigrants. They dont have hellenic citizenship. So correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.60.139 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If the infobox refered to ethnic minorities then it would say ethnic minorities. It says ethnic groups, unless the 700,000 Albanians don't live in Greece and go back to albania at the end of the day. --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't matter what Greece's constitution recognizes, Wikipedia doesn't function according to Greek constitution. man with one red shoe 00:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hello there! First of all let me express my opinion in regards with the images in Greece article: They are way too few, especially for the history and culture of this country taking into account also other countries articles. If you read other countries articles, you area amazed by the number of images ("sandwitched" or not, whatever that means:)). It is unclear why there are so few images, but I try to help this by adding and/or replacing a few. Two of those images show a) The AUEB university building and b) Egnatia Odos. The first is correctly placed in the Education section and its not about the building, i.e. whether is imressive or not (we are not trying to impress here, neither we are in a contest) but about a building of a university with rather great history. I just thought to add it as well. The second image shows Egnatia Odos and is correctly shown in the Transport Section. When the article says that "since the 80s the road network has been significantly modernized" and also refers to Egnatia Odos, I think its pretty straigh forward that you need to include a photo of this great road project, which is one of the greatest contruction projects carried out in Greece in the recent years, and certainly the greatest in terms of road contruction.Nochoje (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a general article about the country, and specialized images such as this are not really needed. Off course the aueb picture can be added in the 'Education of Greece' article but if we put this in 'Greece', then I see no reason why aueb is preferred among 20 Universities and 15 pg schools of Greece. Also per sandwich both pictures (Egnatia too) should be discussed before we add them in this overcrowed article. Off course we should remove equal number of pictures.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this article is not overcrowded in terms of images in relation always to other articles image numbers. Just take a look at other countries. Why is so that other articles have so vast image numbers and Greece article not?

Anyway, I understand your point about AUEB, but I strongly believe that 1 image for Egnatia should definitely stay since we are talking about THE most important road project in Greece for the last years.Nochoje (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suggest to replace the Attiki Odos picture with an Egnatia one. About the number of pictures we can take some ideas from high quality country articles, such as Germany and Bulgaria.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandwiching is when you put text between two images, and wikipedia discourages it (see Manual of Style: images for more). --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Parsnips Maybe but not Potatoes

The cuisine of ancient Greece by no means included potatoes.

Some dishes can be traced back to ancient Greece like skordalia (a thick purée of potatoes, walnuts...

Advanced economy?

I think that this is reasonably misleading to have the lead paragraph without the context that this is an IMF category. At least, the qualifier that this is nomenclature / categorisation used by the IMF would be useful here, because the Economy of Greece would not really be described as "far on or ahead in development or progress" as advanced is usually defined (by the OED), and it is misleading to readers who want a quick overview of the country. Also, I think the IMF's position on the economy of Greece may have changed since April. Do we have a more up to date source about what the IMF thinks of the Economy of Greece? I think it should be removed, what do others think? 121.98.83.76 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Edit I see this was mentioned further up the page, and poorly articulated. My suggestion is not that it is deleted, because obviously the IMF is one of the benchmarks for such definitions. Rather, it should not be in the lead, or at least if it is to remain there it should be qualified.121.98.83.76 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Are there any comparables in other articles?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be changed per se, the economic crisis does not change the fact that -in the larger picture- Greece's economy is indeed an advanced and high-income one. Rather, I think it would be appropriate to phrase the sentence something like this: "A developed country with an advanced,[14][15] high-income economy,[16] the country has been facing financial difficulties due to its public debt since 2009 (142.8% in 2010). With a very high Human Development Index (22nd highest in the world as of 2010) and consistently high quality of life rankings,[17][18][19] Greece has been a member of what is now the European Union since 1981 and the eurozone since 2001,[20] NATO since 1952,[21] and the European Space Agency since 2005.[22]". --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of what you have suggested Phillyboy 92 would be a useful addition to the article's lead. 121.98.83.76 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Population Of Greece

I think the article should mention what the population of Greece is in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.104.146 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Country Name

Since the latest events, name should be changed to Hellenic Police State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiectum (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Index of Economic Freedom"

Original: "In 2009, Greece had the EU's second lowest Index of Economic Freedom (after Poland), ranking 81st in the world.[51]"

While I would strongly suggest removing this sentence (on grounds that its implication is biased and controversial, and it comes from two extremely conservative sources that themselves are highly controversial), this is a suggested edit if it is to remain:

"The Heritage Foundation( a conservative think tank) and the Wall St. Journal publish an Index of Economic Freedom. While the correlation between this index and economic prosperity is controversial, in 2009 Greece ranked the second lowest...etc."

98.154.13.181 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

to have that edit you'll need to come up with some very solid sourcing on the "controversial" POV. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.218.234.166, 3 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

According to what Police state is and how Greece is ruled now government of greece should change to police state. From Police state wiki: The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

88.218.234.166 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Police brutality was used extensively on June 28-29 with the aim of dispursing the crowds that had been gathered in front of parliament for 37 days, and it failed to stop the mostly peaceful protests. However, lets not get OTT here, Greece is not a police state. The police has no authority in the economic, social or political life of the country.--Philly boy92 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical moments in infobox

I feel that a couple of pre-1821 historical events from Greek history should be added in infobox (for example fall of the Byz. Empire, or the Golden Age of Pericles). This is in accordance with most country infoboxes that include events before their Independence (Germany with the HRE, France with Francia, Bulgaria with the Medieval Bulgarian State).Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I propose 338 BC, the date of formation of the League of Corinth as the first unified Greek state, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Athenean (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)