User talk:Xenovatis

Τσου

Κανένα μικροedit εδώ κι εκεί θα κάνω, όπως πάντα. Ο Γιώργος έχει RL issues οπότε δε θα τον ενοχλήσω προς το παρόν. Που θα πάει, θα επιστρέψει όμως! Καλως μάς γύρισες κι εσύ. Τα άρθρα σου για τη διασπορά είναι πολύ ενδιαφέροντα (phallkloric χα). 3rdAlcove (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavic scripts

Yes, you're keeping the reference, but deleting the referenced material. I'll be happy to discuss stuff you have a problem with on the talk page, but blanking pertinent material ref'd by reliable sources is not appropriate. And no, we do not use other encyclopedias as references. They are not considered reliable. (I can't go through a page in the EB without finding a factual error, but this is also Wikipedia policy.) kwami (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You have violated WP:3RR at Glagolitic alphabet and Early Cyrillic alphabet. I expect you to revert your changes immediately, or I will report you and ask to have you blocked. Yes, we should reach consensus, but meanwhile you should not be pushing a POV as fact. kwami (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly projecting, as well as abusing your admin priviledges. Xenovatis

Skopje Airport

Both of you are editwarring, please stop or you may be blocked for disruption. —— nixeagle 19:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys also look like you are reverting each other at Airport St. Paul the Apostle as well. Please stop. —— nixeagle 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not just us guys. It was me and user:Aramgar which, for some reason I can't possibly begin to imagine, dragged in someone with whom he has a RL relationship (as stated in their user page). Seems like a pretty obvious ploy to circumvent 3RR.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think so, report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Regardless all parties need to stop and start discussing. —— nixeagle 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of taking it there as they don't have a nationalst agenda. My intention is to resolve this in talk, permanently.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is up to you, I only noticed your dispute because I'm running a bot that detects these sorts of things, and you guys triggered it. :) —— nixeagle 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. It has helped. Take care.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xenovatis. What are "spirited clams"? Is that like a quohog, or is it just a typo? ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Saelogo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Saelogo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Winnifrith

Thanx. I know the site you quote from. Quite dormant lately. You've got to take Winnifrith with a pinch of salt (i.e. be cautious about him). His allegiances lie with the philhellenes. (He translates from Ancient Greek into English as a professor of classical literature what he is and the Vlach stuff is more of a hobby than his main "subject". His main concern is not to offend the Greeks thus he does his best to belittle that segment of the Vlahizmos (so to speak) that was by no means pro-Greek. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes on the Pontic Greek genocide

Hi Xenovatis, I replied to your question on Wikiquote here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Unreferenced Article Cleanup WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of December, 2008 there were over 154,000 unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply click here and sign your username to accept!

--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greek genocide

The page has now been moved. It would be greatly appreciated if you could be active in tweaking the text in places appropriately to reflect the more inclusive nature of the article and its title now. I have begun the process and there isn't a lot more work to do (because of the nature of the content), but your help will still be appreciated. Thanks. Bebek101 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad

Wasn't signed in. I always thought of cutting back on those two but I really could never do it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, there's a claim regarding Digenis Akritas in the section: is that in the source or an original idea? Know who added it? 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, the source only mentions that his father was Syrian.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the case in point phrasing. Do you think that is enough or would it need removing?--Xenovatis (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting but probably still WP:OR. Sorry for being so nitpicky about things I do notice but since you're going for FA... 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will remove it. WRT race in byzantium i found another ref here that says it wasn't an issue. Tell me what you think. I am taking this discussion on the article's talk if it's allright.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course it didn't. My point was about the interpretation of the specific example. It's fine. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Here are the references you requested all of which indicate that the Greeks "emerged" in Greece. Take as much time as you need.

• Dietrich, Bernard Clive. The Origins of Greek Religion. Walter de Gruyter, 1974, ISBN 3110039826, pp. 1-2. "Such features include the destruction of older settlements, like Eutresis and Central Greece, the foundation of new settlements, the expansion of cist-grave burials, and the "systematization of the megaron-type of houses". At the same time the so-called Grey Minyan Ware began to appear throughout Greece, and this distinctive type of pottery was naturally coupled with the arrival from the north of invading Indo-European tribes together with their culture and religion. But no single item on this list is entirely novel, in the sense that it possessed no forerunners in previous periods, so that inevitably some doubt attaches to the theory of a mainland invasion by an Indo-European or any other race at the beginning of Middle Helladic."

• Dietrich, Bernard Clive. The Origins of Greek Religion. Walter de Gruyter, 1974, ISBN 3110039826, p. 3. "It can be said, therefore, that there are no convincing archaeological grounds for supposing an invasion of Greece in Early Helladic III. It is possible, of course, that migratory movements into this region left no recognizable archaeological traces; but this is a dangerous and unworkable argument. It seems best then to abandon the belief in a large scale incursion accompanied by a clear and sudden cultural break."

• Polomé, Edgar C. and Winter, Werner. Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Walter de Gruyter, 1992, ISBN 3110126710, pp. 482–483. “In fact, the balance of the archaeological evidence is now firmly set against the once-prevailing view that three migratory waves of Indo-Europeans (whether or not they had already become linguistically “Greek”), entered Greece bent on territorial expansion by military conquest (cf. Hooker 1976; Chadwick 1969: 80 – 82). It is perhaps fitting that so undistinguished a fabric as “Grey Minyan ware” should have been at the leading edge of debate concerning so spectral a subject as “the coming of the Greeks”. At any rate, the pottery evidence no longer supports these phantom invasions, since “it is now seen that the technique of manufacturing Grey Minyan ware was developed locally in Greece.” (Hooker 1976:29).

• Polome, Edgar C. Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polome. Institute for the Study of Man, 1992, ISBN 0941694372, p. 29. "However, it is difficult to find archaeological evidence for an invasion of the Balkans, that might be associated with the Proto-Greeks."

• Runnels, Curtis Neil and Murray, Priscilla. Greece Before History: An Archaeological Companion and Guide. Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 080474050X, p. 64. "It seems to us an inevitable conclusion that Greek life as we know it from the annals of history began in the humble Neolithic village of Thessaly and the Peloponnese. To say that little has changed in Greek village life from the Neolithic to early industrial times is a cliché and an oversimplification, of course, and while it may be true that mud-brick houses, agricultural rhythms, and simple tools and pots have similarities across the centuries, culture has also changed, as it is expressed in language, custom, kinship, the arts, religion, and social structure. But patterns of life do persist for centuries, and in the absence of evidence of great rifts in this fabric we have no reason to suppose that a profound change in ethnicity, however this may be defined, has occurred. Neolithic civilization stands as the first true Greek civilization, indeed the first recorded European civilization, and for this reason the few precious finds recovered from archaeological excavations in the Thessalian tells have special significance for the world."

Thanks for opening this discussion my friend. Happy Holidays. Deucalionite (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

You can always ask User:Macrakis for input wrt the particular section. I'm sure he'll be haaappy to point out other inaccuracies and errors as well. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording- great job! and Merry Chirstmas GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Geia sou, Xenovati. Thanks for your contributions to the Greek cuisine article (among others). Did you have a particular issue you wanted to talk about? --macrakis (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cypriot British

Hi. Thanks for adding more detail to the Cypriot British article. If it's OK with you, I might try to merge that paragraph with the existing text because it's written as if Greek Cypriots haven't already been discussed by that point in the article, when they have been. Also, I wasn't sure that it was all relevant. For example, "there was also an increase in the number of Greek Cypriots leaving, especially for the Middle East" and "Today more than two thirds of the Greek population in Cyprus is urban" probably belong more in an article about Cyprus or Cypriot emigration than in an article about Cypriot Brits. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, I think pretty much all of the information you added other than the bits about emigration to the Middle East and the urban population was already in the article. I'm going to remove it for now but come back to me if you think there is something worth including. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However one fairly crucial bit of information was somehow omitted. That has now been rectified. Merry Christmas.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What was that? I see you made this edit, but none of the references provided back up the claims being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the cited passages? I mean the parts where Holland for example talks about "ethnic cleansing".--Xenovatis (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he's talking about 1958 whereas you're using it to support a statement about 1974. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And the Sicilianos reference you've just added doesn't support it either. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we just use the Borowiec reference? That seems to be pretty clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I found some more and they all seem to support the case for ethnic cleansing by turkey in the occupied lands. I suggest we keep only 1 that includes them all in order to deter future vandalism.--Xenovatis (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand that? You want to keep one or all of them? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sicilianos says, and I quote: "In occupied Cyprus on the other hand where heavy ethnic cleansing took place" etc. Pretty obvious support. But it is not one of my strongest.--Xenovatis (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I see it. The version on Google Books has two page 24s for some reason! Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Are you happy with the current format?--Xenovatis (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost. Borowiec gives a lower figure though, suggesting that the 200,000 is only used by government sources and suggesting that it might be unreliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to go with his figure of 140-160.--Xenovatis (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could put that and then say "and put as high as 200,000 by Cypriot government sources"? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Xenovatis (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I can't help but think that all this detail would be better placed at Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which simply gives the 200,000 figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added the information to Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I think we could lose the number of people displaced at Cypriot British because it doesn't really have any relevance to the article. We already have the number who came to the UK, which is the relevant statistic for this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again.

Here is another source regarding the "emergence" of the Greeks.

• Catling, H.W. "Archaeology in Greece, 1973-74". Archaeological Reports, No. 20. (1973 - 1974), pp. 3-41. "Lake Copais area. Th. Spyropoulos reports preliminary results of his research into the prehistoric settlement of the Copaic basin. Of particular interest are the rich Neolithic finds (Fig. 33) from a cave, Spilia tou Sarakéou, on the west slopes of Mt Ptoon, occupied continuously from Paleolithic, through Neolithic to Middle Helladic times."

I think it is safe to state that the "proto-Greeks" emerged in Greece rather than in central Europe. I don't think there is a lot of hard proof to substantiate an Indo-European migration of "would-be Greeks" from the Pannonian Plain to Greece in prehistoric times.

I recommend incorporating the following sentences:

The progenitors of the proto-Greeks emerged in mainland Greece during the Early Helladic period. However, the Mycenaeans became the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script.

The so-called "mingling" between the "proto-Greeks" and "pre-Hellenic populations" is a throwback to 19th century scholarship that acknowledges an Indo-European migration(s) that in reality is nothing more than a simple phantom invasion(s). The fact that there is a demographic continuity from Paleolithic times up until the Middle Helladic period (i.e. "Minyans" or "proto-Greeks") should help clarify as to where the "would-be Greeks" first originated.

Enjoy the holidays my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you want replace the "Early Helladic period" with "Neolithic era" or "Paleolithic times", then go right ahead. Deucalionite (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kales Giortes

I checked the Greek identity article and think it's sort of redundant (not a bad idea though) since everything about Greek identity is in the "Greeks" article. Don't worry about spatial constraints, because a lot of FA articles are very long. I think it would be best to reincorporate the "Genetic origins" section back to the "Greeks" article (if you look at the Jews article, it has the same thing). Deucalionite (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As for the "Greeks" article, I think my "bold" statements fulfill both WP:BOLD and WP:RS (as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned). Deucalionite (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that all ethnic group articles have a genetics section but I always fancied we were unique in not placing emphasis on this component for membership in Hellenism. If however you think it is required by all means re-add a paragraph on genetics as a separate section in the identity section. I will try to do it myself and condence the material so that it includes all sources. Eucharisto Deuci.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm not sure what you mean by "science". Is there any physical proof to substantiate the "Out of Central Europe" theory? If there is, then I support your proposal 100%. Don't take my obstinence the wrong way. I think you're doing a wonderful job. However, I don't want sections of the "Greeks" article containing throwback 19th century scholarship that passes itself for "modern science". Readers deserve better. Deucalionite (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Counterproposal

Here is my counterproposal. Consensus or not, if there is no evidence to substantiate the "Out of Central Europe" theory, then that theory is not scientific. This being Christmas and all, I've decided to maintain the first sentence reflecting the "consensus view". As far as the physical evidence is concerned, any 19th century "admixture fetish" between proto-Greeks and pre-Greeks is useless and must be removed.

• Proto-Greeks are thought to have emerged in Central Europe, in what is called today the Pannonian Plain. However, there is no physical evidence to substantiate this theory. Their progenitors were likely to have been present in mainland Greece since prehistoric times. The Mycenaeans were ultimately the first Greek-speaking people, as attested by the Iliad and Odyssey and later the deciphering of their Linear B script.

This, I think, is better since it acknowledges the consensus view while revealing its major faults. That way, the article maintains some kind of scientific credibility. Deucalionite (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Nah, I don't mind. I still think the green one is a bit sub-par, though. There might be other good ones around. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's collaborate

Like I said on my talk page, you are right to insist that we do things based on collaborative efforts. Tell me what you want me to collaborate on, and I will do my best to help. By the way, I am not trying to engage in an edit war. I may be obstinate, but not unreasonable. Deucalionite (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander in Classical section

Do you mind if we keep a version more faithful to the previous one? I understand that this might be a bit touchy with some Greeks (I'm not referring to you, obviously) but there is genuine disagreement on motives (and as you know, even relationships) so I'd rather that we take a more indifferent (as in, not showing "preference" indirectly) view. We could perhaps sidestep it altogether with a bit of reduction. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Go right ahead. We could say something like "the avowed purpose was revenge for the Persian invasions but the actual motives were more prosaic eg conquest, loot etc." --Xenovatis (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sorry to bother you again, but I've provided a suggestion on my talk page regarding the "origins of the Greeks". Feel free to stop by and tell me what you think. Deucalionite (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I provided a response to your suggestion. Deucalionite (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeks and Pre-Greeks

I noticed that you achieved a compromise with D. mentioning that "Due to the paucity of physical evidence in support of this theory, it has been suggested that the proto-Greeks were present there since prehistoric times." Is ANYONE disputing that? I suppose one could argue over the meaning of "proto-Greek" but the point here is simply that we can't be entirely sure about the date of the IE-to-be-Greek migration/infiltration, not that they weren't present in Greece since prehistory (even 1600 is prehistory for Greece, of course). His insistence, to be perfectly honest, has more to do with his theories of "Greek autochthony" than anything else, including a need to adhere to the Truth. Frankly it's getting a bit annoying. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If I adhered to the "Truth" 3rdAlcove, then I wouldn't even bother to compromise with Xenovatis let alone collaborate with anyone. The only reason you find me and my "Greek autochthony theories" annoying is because your preference is towards abstract IE theories instead of hard evidence. To each his own as far as I'm concerned. However, if you have a problem with the compromise Xenovatis and I established, then please come up with some counterevidence and make your case. Talking s**** behind my back gets you nowhere buddy. Now that's annoying. Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deuci please understand that this article is problematic as it is and highly unlikely to pass muster at any sort of review. The peer review it has received so far was extremely critical and in fact mentioned, twice, the mycenaean section and the undue weight given to the autochthony hypothesis. Under these conditions I don't see how it can remain in the article. I realise you feel it is correct but untill the wider academic community comes around it doesn't have a place there.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your bias and the biases of other users completely. That is why I compromised seeing that Wikipedia is not ready to acknowledge all the hard facts. I'm sorry for being obstinate, but I don't see how one measly sentence complementing the consensus view creates "undue weight". Just because some users don't like certain facts doesn't mean that they are not relevant to the article.

As long as the academic community acknowledges the faults behind the "Pannonian Theory", there is no way that one measly sentence violates WP:UNDUE. My friend, you accomplished a feat when you managed to convince me that two sentences in support of the so-called "autochthony theory" would cause dissonance. Please don't ruin it. Deucalionite (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to "talk shit" (you messed your asterisks up) behind your back I wouldn't do it on a public talk page. No, what will not get us anywhere are "compromises" with you. You've made it clear before. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about the asterisks. Public or not, your grievances with me should be taken to my talk page where I can provide you with a proper response. Deucalionite (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

True enough wrt "Western reviewers", though I believe that most(?) problems regarding an "essential", monolithic Greek identity, unchanging through time (even the horrifying "admixture" for the hardcore ones) have been addressed to a great degree since your major edits on the article (now and back then). 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you could always invite some of the people who contested such matters in the past (I could name names) and met some resistance from our compatriots. A harsh, or at least foreign, Western, English-speaking-world, viewpoint might actually be constructive in creating a really good article in the long run... 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Macrakis for example. It's unfortunate that Giorgos isn't around these days. Yannis and Dr. K could also be of help. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could add a line regarding foreign influence on surnames (eg Arvanitic, Venetian, Turkish in roots and suffixes)? Have any sources handy? 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what are your thoughts for the article's future? Fut.Per. seems to be back, btw, so a request for comment might help. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck.

Seems like everyone αραιώνει, lately. Btw, I think you've done a pretty decent job on the Greeks article so far (especially considering how difficult such articles are to work on/with, for a variety of reasons that you're familiar with, from space limitations to...). Everyone who envisions it as an "FA finished product" certainly can't evaluate the work done so far, especially without reviewing it. I hope you get back to it soon, anyhow. I might add a few things, now and then. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Theahalo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Theahalo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

TAF and Edit Warning

It isn't that I disagree with your overall sentiment as far as the facts you are trying to add to the Turkish Armed Forces article. However, the content is editorial, rather than NPOV, and is clearly only going to start an edit war. If you want it in the article, very well, but take it to the talk page and develop an NPOV version of it first. Because you are a regular, I am not dropping a template warning, but consider this your first warning. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Better version the second time through. Consider my warning removed, and you have my thanks for removing the rhetoric. I suspect it will still get hit with some edit war action, but it has lasted most of this evening, so it may yet have a chance. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkish people article

Hi Xenovatis, I have been watching the Turkish People article for quite some time and seem to have recognised that you have a certain force against the race and thus have taken upon yourself to show some kind of 'anti-Turkish' elements. Once you included: '...there are very few Christians left in Asia Minor while there are significant Turkish minorities in Europe' that was certainly the last straw. Through Wikipedia we should be trying to help each other by making the articles respectable not trying to set out nationalistic agendas.

Also regarding the symbols section, I am not stating that the Byzantines did not use the Crescent moon and star, however some of the references which I have so far looked at' are incorrect, especially the books which you have stated. In fact I am almost certain that you have not actually looked at those books and just copied these references from other articles (such as Flag of Turkey etc). You have also removed academic Turkish references (and called them unreliable) yet added unreliable web references yourself. Please correct this otherwise those references with be removed by me. Please take these comments in good faith. Good day to you. Thetruthonly (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will for now remove the unreliable web sources. But I will leave the information and cited books to allow you time to improve this. Thetruthonly (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a very low yet characteristic dig to throu mud that the sources do not say what they in fact do and hope some of it sticks. I dare you to show the sources do not containt the relevant information.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Islam FAQ. [S.l.], p68

It was the symbol of the Sassanids of Persia (iran) for about 450 years

• World Religions

It was borrowed from Christian Constantinople by the conquering Ottomans.

• Ecnyclopedia of ancient Greece

the crescent moon and star which was later adopted by the modern turkish state.

--Xenovatis (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your early reply. As I stated before some of your references which are cited books (not all of them are incorrect). I do not have my notes of me right now to state which ones are incorrect right now (as I research the topic prior to messaging you). As I also stated before, I am not denying that Greeks have used it so please take my comments in good faith. However I do not like the wording in the article and there are some wrong references and I invite you to help me with this article. I am not 'lying' and I am not here to argue with you on race, ethnicity, religion etc. So please treat me with some respect. Thank You and I will get back to you soon. For now I want to concentrate on the 'Architecture' section of the article as it is extremely poor. Thetruthonly (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi2.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi2.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi2.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:McNazi3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:McNazi3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi4.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi4.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi4.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi5.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi5.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:McNazi5.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:McNazi5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi / Can you access this?

Hi Xenovatis. Can you access this article [1]? It may have some important information that we can use to create a new 'relief efforts' subsection on the Greek genocide page. I also mention this because you said you were compiling a collection of relevant material. Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xenovatis, Thanks very much. I added an email to my account -- please do send me a copy. Bebek101 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pontic Greek genocide/Relief

Talk:Pontic Greek genocide/Relief is a copyright violation. Please blank the page and I'll delete it. --PBS (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --PBS (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Philip.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greeks

Geia, Xenovati,

I haven't been spending much time on Wikipedia in general or on Greeks in particular, and there are a lot of things I haven't read that seem relevant (I am certainly not an expert!). For example:

• Robert Shannan Peckham, National Histories, Natural States: Nationalism and the Politics of Place in Greece
• Victor Roudometof "National Commemorations in the Balkans", in Michael E. Geisler, ed., National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting the National Narrative, "Of course, the asserted continuity between ancient and modern Greeks was more rhetoric than reality", p. 40
• Keith S. Brown, Yannis Hamilakis, eds., The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories

Best, --macrakis (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

X, the Geisler book is actually an edited volume, sorry for the sloppy cite (that I've criticized others for). The article in question is by Victor Roudometof, and I've corrected the citation above. Roudometof has written many interesting articles on the Balkans. --macrakis (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

+ Yannis Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece

"McNazi" images

Hello, independently of the legitimacy-or-not of the use of those images, can you please upload them under different filenames, for a start? That naming is a very unnecessary provocation and could well be interpreted as POV vandalism. I suggest we solve this amicably and unbureaucratically by you simply re-uploading them elsewhere. I'll delete these copies. (Technically, images can't be "moved", so we need to use this maneuvre.)

As for how and where to use them, that's a different issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the no-source situation is really one thing, the file name issue is another, right? I haven't yet made up my mind about how to deal with the copyright situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About File:WWIIGathering3.jpg, there's still a bit of a problem because your Greek newspaper source is most likely not the copyright holder. To be correct, we'd need the original source (i.e. photographer and/or original publication). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:McNazi1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:McNazi1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nation and identity

Hello, Xenovati,

There is certainly linguistic continuity (with all the complications of borrowings from Attic at all subsequent periods etc.), but the article Greeks is about the Greeks, not about the Greek language, except to the extent that it relates to national identity. At some periods the language was nearly a defining characteristic, at others less so or even not at all (in 1923 language didn't matter at all, only religion).

I am not sure what "cultural continuity" is and why it is relevant to "the Greeks". Are you talking about the prestige of ancient Greek among the educated?

Again, one of the gaping holes in the Greeks article is the question of how people define themselves as Greek at different periods, and how Greekness was a fluid category that could be adopted by a large variety of people. --macrakis (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really can't devote as much time to this subject as you have (thank you!), but a few brief notes. I'm afraid I haven't read the full books to understand the complete context of all your quotations (I hope you have, because isolated quotations are pretty much meaningless), but based on Google/Amazon/Web excerpts, here are a few observations:

You quote Hastings p. 202 referring to "a rather thoroughly Greek empire", but part of the question is what does "Greek" mean here? On p. 20, he says "...the usage of two written languages, Latin and Greek, each with a vast literature of its own, in fact created two social identities, quite unrelated to any underlying ethnicity, almost two nations...". That is, there is a "social identity" called "Greek" based on literacy in Greek in the eastern Roman Empire during at least some periods. But Hastings doesn't elaborate on this theme; in fact, Greek identity is peripheral to his subject.

The Anthony Smith quotation is very pertinent, but if you read it with the preceding sentence (please include relevant context), he talks of the "enormous cultural changes...despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity". So he seems to be saying that there is a "sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity" despite the "enormous cultural changes". So chalk him up in the "ethnic continuity" column.

The crux of the Hobsbawm quote is "proto-nationalism", which he defines as a variety of symbols (including language, religion, etc.) which can be mobilized to "form nationalities". His whole point here is that ancient Greece "meant little if anything to them [i.e. the Greek revolutionaries], and insofar as they had heard of them, they did not think of them as relevant", but that these symbols were used in the modern period.

Best, --macrakis (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick answer to: "You are assuming that the only valid Hellenism is the Classical". No, I am saying that there are many kinds of Greekness/Hellenism, and we should describe them all, not treat them as all the same. We should also describe the different views on that by serious modern scholars, including those with a broad perspective like Anthony Smith and Hobsbawm and specialists like Hamilakis, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, and others. --macrakis (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Homer and Theodorakis as part of the same "linguistic and cultural world" is silly and simplistic. As Schwandner-Sievers says (quoted by Finney in the Hamilakis volume, p. 87): "There is only one war academics can fight. This is a war against simplification processes.... We can keep faith with our ideals of critical analysis and attempt to disseminate knowledge of and deconstruct the myths of political rhetoric and associated processes...." A good encyclopedia article should not be "a celebration of Hellenism" (or a celebration of anything else), but solid, sober analysis. --macrakis (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenovati, I don't understand why you've suddenly changed your tone. I thought we were discussing calmly and reasonably, and now I read:

What is silly is using a passage from an article written in the heat of the Kossovo conflict in Britain and ladden with the state sponsored prejudice of the time to impugne my motives.

Huh? I was not impugning your motives in any way. And I'm not sure what you mean about 'state sponsored prejudice'. The quote is from an academic who is saying that the role of academics is to ensure that issues don't become oversimplified. Especially not in the service of some political goal (any political goal).

It is also interesting that you would feel threatened by the evidence I presented

Huh?

and succumb to the need to employ agonistic language. While at the same time using insulting language

Huh? I said that it would be silly and simplistic for the article to treat Homer and Theodorakis as though they were just undifferentiated 'Greeks'. I didn't say you were silly and simplistic; in fact I thought we were converging in our positions -- you agree with my 25 January 2009 20:35 note that "there are many kinds of Greekness/Hellenism, and we should describe them all".

and bringing nothing in terms of arguments or literature to the debate.

Strange, just a few days ago you thanked me for several references I had passed along.

You made an assertion, that in effect there is no such thing as Greek cultural continuity.

No, I questioned how exactly that could usefully be defined cf. Identity and change and Ship of Theseus. --macrakis (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, in every time and place there are certain "standards" of legitimacy, including ancestry, connection to some higher authority (God or emperor), skills (military or even literary!), etc. And people in power do what they have to do to meet those standards, including inventing genealogies, forging documents e.g. Donation of Constantine, etc. Similarly, nation-states have certain touchstones of authenticity/legitimacy. Gellner has a great chapter making fun of the 19th century invention/creation/definition of national music, national language, national folkdances, national poets, national epics, national cuisines, etc. Then there's the whole Urrecht thing.

As Hobsbawm says, it is much more difficult to know what people who were not in power presented themselves as (or considered themselves as), since they mostly haven't left records. .... --macrakis (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Full video, with translation

Here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GCIITA.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GCIITA.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernal

How's the edit? I think "controversy" should be generally kept to as few articles as possible because it otherwise attracts all sorts of editors with a serious ideological axe to grind. Btw, have you read BA? The first(?) volume might be of interest to you since you like to investigate the Western perceptions of (ancient) Greece and their biases. It seems to have been generally better received than his other volumes which are devoted to the "Eastern impact" (which exists, obviously, see Walter Burkert's The Orientalizing Revolution for example) and for good reason, stemming from serious arguments (despite what "indigenists" on one hand or "afrocentrists" and "PCers" on the other would have us believe; I've noticed that the whole thesis is frequently strawmanized to argue one way or another). I've read bits and pieces, here and there. That Lambropoulos book (apart from the books and articles directly devoted examining the thesis) also makes some interesting points wrt BA. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek genocide

Xenovatis comment such as "rv to concensus, if you have issues take them to talk before, and let me stress the before bit, reverting" does not help build a consensus. Further comments like "turkish genocide denialist" is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL (see the section "Engaging in incivility"), as I am involved in this dispute I will not block you myself, but I will ask at WP:ANI for a block if you use language like that again. --PBS (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:GCIITA.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GCIITA.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo

I' ve seen you have contributed to this article [2] in the past, I would appreciate it if you could please review the recent changes and assist in "wikifying" or expanding it? Thanks--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maccabees

Your opinion on the merge proposal would be welcome. Marshall46 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Population exchange between Greece and Turkey

At this article you have reverted 3 times today. Please edit the article, and don't simply revert to your favorite version. Jd2718 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)