Talk:Greeks

Edits by User:Pensionero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greeks in the US

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

"Related" groups, for the n-th time

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

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

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

Image of the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callas vs Dimas

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

...

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

Ancient vs. Modern

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

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

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

Excuse me, but what happened to assuming good faith. I have provided sourced material which you can edit to make it sound more professional but you cannot delete it. Please respect some etiquette rules. Ottomanist (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)