Talk:Greeks/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Greeks in Turkey

5000? There's 1.5 million not 5000. Surely just because a Greeks is muslim doesn't make him or her any less Greek. It should be changed.--English Bobby (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bobby if you can bring sources to that effect I would be happy to amend the number, Muslims or not.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It all comes down to definitions, doesn't it? In the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, people were defined as Greek if they were Greek Orthodox, and defined as Turkish if they were Muslim. There are of course other possible definitions. Most of the Muslims in Crete, for example (see Turco-Cretans) were Greek-speaking and largely descended from converts, but they either left voluntarily or were deported to Turkey. And no doubt much of the current population of Anatolia has ancestors who were Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. But under modern ethnic definitions, none of these people are "Greeks"; similarly, the descendants of Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians in Anatolia (Karamanlides) who live in Greece are not considered "Turks". --macrakis (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Its alls on this article, Greek Muslims sources included. Described as ethnic Greek Muslims. I think they should count. These people are seen as a distinct group from the Turks (whom i agree are mostly of Greek speaking decent) and many of them still speak Greek. It'd look a little less depressing for the Greeks in Turkey part as well :)--English Bobby (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bobby, it only looks depressing because it is.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, i mean i'm no fan of Turkey but i do feel they fallen victim to a form of "black legend" by that everyone assumes that the indigenous populations (not including the Turks real ancestors) have been wiped out and replaced. This isn't entirely true. The Greek muslims and Kurds among others are an example of that. The real expulsions would be better defined by religion not race. Anyway i still think they should be added as the Greek muslims are Greeks by ethnicity and somewhat culturally too, and this article is about ethnic Greeks not orthodox Christians.--English Bobby (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well what took place was the turkification of the native populations of Asia Minor so indeed most were converted religiously and linguistically rather than murdered to the degree that a Central Asian component is only a minority influence on modern Turks' genetic makeup. The mass murders were only institutionalised with the rise of the nationalist Young Turks who were substantially less tolerant than the Sultans (see Greek genocide). If there are sources claiming that these Greek-speaking Muslims identify themselves as Greeks (either Hellenes or Romaioi) then I would be happy to add it to the article, but I doubt that they do.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed! To include a group of people in the Greek diaspora we have to take into account not only their Greek ancestry but their self-identification as well. Of course there are people of Greek ancestry in Turkey, on the western coastline, in Constantinople and Pontus, but they have been absorbed into the turkish culture and society and don't self-identify as Greeks anymore. Such groups of people, that have been living somewhere for centuries and have intermingled with the local population so as not to include them in any diaspora, exist in every modern state. - Sthenel (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but we're not talking about Greeks long absorbed by the locals (that would be most Turks) i'm talking about Greeks speaking ethnic Greek muslims living in Turkey. They are Greeks i can't see whats wrong with that. Thats how all the other ethnic groups are done. Its defined by their race not what they want to be, in this case these people are seen as distinct from your average Turk. The Griko people have lived in Italy for thousands of years, does that mean they should not count? This article is about Greeks not just the Christian ones. Its in the Greek Muslims article.--English Bobby (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some way of mentioning ethnic Greek Muslims living in Turkey and the process of the Turkification should be included in the article, at the same time making it clear that these people are not generally considered "Greek" according to the modern definition of an ethnic group. Athenean (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but we must remember that the Greek Muslims are from Greece not Turkey they were exchanged for Greek Christians in 1923. Their not the same as the "ethnic Turks" because their not from Asia minor. Also 1.5 million is the number that identify as Greek Muslims whereas considering demographic changes its probably much higher in reality. But as Anothroskon pointed out only the identifying ones would count.--English Bobby (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Griko people have maintained their Greek identity so far and if we had any reliable source about Muslims in Turkey that can be described as ethnic Greeks respectively, then we could add them in the Greek diaspora. Once upon a time I watched a documentary about Muslim Pontic Greeks in Turkey; they said that they were aware of their Greek origin but they didn't feel anything else but Turks. These people could not be included in the Greek diaspora of Turkey. - Sthenel (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't have a separate article if they were just Turks, they are Greek speaking Muslims and thus are ethnic Greeks. This is about a race not just a nationality. Technically the Greek Cypriots are not Greek by nationality (yet) but are included. They should at least be mentioned as user Athenean say's.--English Bobby (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, i know this isn't on the topic at hand but why aren't their any Byzantine's in the famous Greeks photo collection. Surely a Comnenus or Paleologus could be there to fill the great gap between ancient and modern Greeks.--English Bobby (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

With you on that one.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to appear rude but can you all please stop calling the Greeks living in Turkey as part of the Greek diaspora! They are not a diaspora, they are natives of Anatolia.GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, i agree but we have to be realistic. Technically Cyprus shouldn't be included as "diaspora" though because its an ethnic Greek island. Greece is the main home of Greeks.

Also i've added a foot note about the Greek Muslims. I've not added their numbers to the population statistics but they deserve to be at least mentioned.--English Bobby (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well do you actually have any reliable sources which states that there is 1.5million in Turkey? If not then this really should not be in the article.GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Its an entire article called Greek Muslims the sources are on there. I've not added them to the population numbers just added a note. They deserve to be mentioned.--English Bobby (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of famous Greeks

I was wondering if it would be a good idea if the were a Byzantine in the famous Greeks section. There is a big gap between the Ancient period and the renaissance.--English Bobby (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We could have added a lot more people in the infobox. Other articles have tens of persons in there (some of them not as famous as they are supposed to be). Apart from these 5 already included, we could add famous Greek heroes, scientists, artists, athletes etc. - Sthenel (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Greeks constitute an ethnic group of great longevity

This should be included in the main article somehow.

Susan Buck Sutton Proffesor of anthropology at Indiana University

Greeks constitute an ethnic group of great longevity, tracing their origins to the first appearance of complex society in southeastern Europe. A common sense of Culture, language, and religion signified by the term "Greek" (Hellene) developed in antiquity and has endured, with changes, to the present. Greek identity today emphasizes early Greek civilization, the Christian traditions of the Byzantine Empire, and the concerns of the modern Greek nation established in 1831. Throughout Greek history, members of other groups were periodically assimilated as Greeks, while Greeks themselves migrated in a worldwide diaspora. The ethnic Greeks now residing outside the Hellenic republic equal those within. This article, however, is restricted to the latter. Anothroskon (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur on it's inclusion. As long as the data is backed by 'facts' and not 'opinion,' why not. Would make an enlightening addition to our understanding of what constitutes a "Greek." --Nikoz78 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

It would be usefull if someone could give a good etymology of the name Hellenes and how it is connected with the name Greeks given by the Romans.188.4.39.201 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Borza on Greeks

Frances B. Titchener, Richard F. Moorton (ed.) The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520210298, 9780520210295, p.259 Chapter: Macedonia Redux by Eugene N. Borza

This is a tale of two Balkan nation-states. One has a long, distinguished history based in part upon the fame of an ancient society and the heritage of Byzantine Christianity. Modern Greeks point with pride to the power and glory of their past. But there may be something else at work in the Greek mentality. Until the early nineteenth century, Greeks of the Diaspora had been prominent throughout Europe in diplomacy, commerce, and cultural affairs. The courts and counting houses employed or were managed by Greeks whose skills in these matters were legendary in Europe for centuries, and who had a telling influence on European life out of proportion to their small numbers. With the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence and the consequent establishment of the modern Hellenic state in the 1820s and 1830os, many of these talented Greeks joined the effort to build the new nation. But in so doing, Greek influence abroad waned.26 In time, the Greeks, who had once been prominent in antiquity, in Byzantine times, and in modern Europe found that they were now relegated to obscurity, dependent upon major European states to provide financial resources and military security against the Turks, struggling to maintain a cohesive government in a remote tip of the Balkans, and engaged in an internal conflict between an imported authoritarian monarchy and the liberal notion that the inventors of democracy should have progressive constitutional government. Thus emerged one of the enduring characteristics of modern Greek life: a desperate attempt to regain a past glory, rooted in the cultural accomplishments of antiquity and the religious and political might of Byzantium. An identification with the ancient Macedonians is part of that attempt.

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. One need understand only a single geopolitical fact: As one measures conflicting Serb and Bulgarian claims over the past nine centuries, they intersect in Macedonia. Macedonia is where the historical Serb thrust to the south and the historical Bulgarian thrust to the west meet. This is not to say that present Serb and Bulgarian ambitions will follow their historical antecedents. But this is the Balkans, where the past has precedence over the present and the future.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.

--Anothroskon (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable POV source

Miranda Vickers is an unreliable POV source. She cannot possibly be used for the number of Greeks in Albania. Athenean (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

She safely may qualify as a RS and is from 2010. What doesn't is the CIA factbook data, which is outdated (1992) and relies on the American Hellenic Institute, and other Greek nationalistic groups. See Talk:Albanians#Infobox_Numbers and please undo yourself. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Vickers is highly partisan, very pro-Albanian, she may not be used for this. By the way, I am not using the CIA factbook (about which you are wrong anyway), but this [1]. Athenean (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I see from this edit that you are using the CIA source. And if you need to use the other source. Greeks are still at 1.7% which would bring make the number of Greeks even smaller. And you still need to clarify why Vickers would be pro-Albanian and why she is not RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's from 2001 and Vickers is from 2010(she's RS, unless you can bring some sources that prove she isn't RS) and newer sources are preferable. Btw this 2003 source used on the article Albanians [2] says about Greek researchers estimating the minority numbers at 60,000, so the 200,000 figure from 2001 is outdated.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when vickers is from, she is partisan and non-neutral. Her works don't include a bibliography, so she also fails RS rather painfully. The phrase "most western estimates" is ideal, and 2001 is recent enough. Besides, the figure here is for ALL Greeks from Albania, whether they still live in Albania or have moved to Greece (no one knows). 200,000 for the total is eminently reasonable. Athenean (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 sources from 2003 and 2010 that put the number to less than 70,000 and you insist on labeling them as pov(without providing sources when asked to) and there is a source from 2001 that has a single sentence among many others and you're trying to monopolize the sources with that single sentence.

Athenean, Vicker's work DOES include a bibliography in page 15. Please check better next time. I threw an RfC there. It doesn't seem like we will be able to agree on sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources about the Greek minority in Albania. Why do we have to use Vickers? Why ignore all the others? The answer is simple: Because Vickers, being highly partisan, gives the lowest of the lowball estimates, that's why. There are plenty of good sources, we do not need to use a partisan source. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Miranda Vickers

Can Miranda Vickers and her study on the Greek minority of Albania be considered a reliable source? [3].I would expect only editors from outside the Balkans to be involved with their comments. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I was not going to get involved but your comment: I would expect only editors from outside the Balkans to be involved with their comments is unacceptable and it should be stricken out of the RFC. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to comment: May I know why? We already know what people from the Balkans will say. These RfCs don't solve anything if only people from the Balkans are involved and otherwise I will have to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I know I'll get better and faster results there, but for some reason I still have faith in the RfC system. I'll tell you what: if you or other people with Balkanic descent get involved in the RfC, I'll just bring it there: these pointless RfCs just waiste 30 days of time, that's all they do. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply I was involved some time ago in some similar disputes from where I can actually copy and paste my replies to answer your question. The short answer is that AGF is paramount here, so you should not be suspicious of other people based on their ethnic background. I accept your good faith and I may disagree with your arguments but I accept them at face value. You should do the same for everyone as well otherwise we are going to get a Wikipedia where you must show your passport to edit articles. Not a good picture. Don't you think? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues Reply2Believe me I would like to agree with you on this, but I waste too much time on controversial articles and as a result of my initial inexperience I have a block log that is often times used against my editing. This block has increased its tally often times because I have not been AGF'd by some peer editors, and admins who were completely unaware of content disputes focused only on evidence collected by people who weren't AGF-ing me and decided sometimes for unfair blocks. This is why I have stopped to AGF in this kind of issues: I know fully well who is involved in them and I advise that uninvolved people only be looking at the sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I sympathise but we should not generalise based on our bad experiences. I still think that a conversation should be carried out using intelligent arguments and be open to all. Balkanians or not everyone should offer their opinions and consensus should be reached on the strength of the arguments and not on the origin of their passport. The only thing the latter would do is create a bunch of anonymous accounts where everyone would not divulge their nationalities. This is not counting the existing accounts where the owner's nationality cannot be identified. Problem solved? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will give it another try with this one. If the RfC fails to have neutral contributors, I reserve the right to bring it to WP:RS. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Of course WP:RSN is also a good option. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that I agree very strongly with Dr. K's point, and would note that the arguments for and against inclusion of a source should stand up on their own, without having to show some sort of proof of ethnic background. Even further, it seems rather unlikely to me that those who are not from the Balkans would be less likely to be interested in the topic in the first place and those would be well versed in it would be quite few. Every wikipedian makes their own contribution, and none should be turned away for reasons that have nothing to do with the strength of that contribution. siafu (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much siafu for your considered and well made points. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although some editors may consider Vickers non reliable, her statement about the Greek-speaking minority in Albania is more than correct. The fact that she cites her sources, is OK by me. Plus, it's published by the Defense Academy of the United Kingdom Beserks (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek nationalist groups such as the American Hellenic Institute claim that the population figures for the minority are grossly distorted, citing the CIA World Fact Book (1992), which records the Greek minority at 8 percent of the total population, and the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation which estimates the Greek minority at roughly 8.75 percent of the population of Albania. The problem here is that since 1992 around a million Albanians, including ethnic Greeks, have emigrated in search of work, and therefore the CIA 1992 Fact Book, which cites figures taken before the collapse of Communism, is hopelessly out of date. Clearly, much needs to be done to clarify the exact size of the Greek minority.

Exactly why is Vickers considered unreliable? Sure, she specializes in Albania, and this inevitably leads to some sort of bias, but the text I read seems reasonable. In fact, she clearly states that the situation is unclear as no census includes ethnicity, and I cannot find any fault with stating that 1992 data are hopelessly out of date. Of course, these data would still be valid to refer to the minority as a whole (i.e. "Greeks from Albania"), rather than the actual number still living there. After all, no one is subtracting 800,000 Albanians who live in Greece from Albania's population either... As long as it is made clear that these numbers represent estimates by one (admittedly well-informed) author, I see no problem with including them. Constantine ✍ 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues is referring to this edit[4] made by Athenean. Beserks (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction made by Constantine. As long as it is made clear that rhere are more ethnic Greeks with Albanian citizenship than are currently residing in Albania and said numbers are clearly attributed to the author I don't see a problem.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is whether Vickers is reliable or not. Beserks (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, she is clearly an expert on the country, having published quite a few books on it, so she should know what she's talking about. I don't see a specific argument as to her not being reliable. She is certainly no Albanian nationalist, her sourcing seems OK, and what she writes is quite reasonable... Whether we take her estimate (or guesstimate) or not, she is a knowledgeable source. Constantine ✍ 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Some users want to monopolize the sources with one single sentence from a 2001 book. There are many updated sources like:

• [5](Recent surveys taken by Greek scholars have furnished the surprising number of sixty thousand.)
• Miranda Vickers
• [6]

and yet articles like Greeks and Greeks in Albania are monopolized with one single outdated source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Vickers is a partisan source, clearly pro-Albanian [[7]][[8]]. I don't understand why on the other hand we should ignore credible source in favor of povish stuff.Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source that you provided doesn't even spell her name correctly (it says Martha rather than Miranda). The source has been blessed by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, it is well referenced and it perfectly qualifies as a reliable source. It clearly explains why the CIA data is correct (in fact the CIA data shows the overall Albanian population incorrectly as 3.6M when it is 3.2M by the Albanian Instat).--Sulmues ^(talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion was contaminated by the usual kalabalık of people that I expected to be around, rather than uninvolved ones, I will bring it to WP:RSN. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither the CIA nor the Instat are flawed because CIA gives figures about 2010 while instat about January 2008. Btw Alexikoua Martha Vickers?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Instat is what we should rely on. It is the most serious authority. How can we expect the CIA to be more accurate than Instat of Albania? The CIA gives a figure of 3.6M, when we know fully well that in Albania we have only 3.2M residents. 3.2M is the number given by Instat and should be respected. As a result the CIA number is unreliable and should be avoided. Vickers very clearly explains the CIA flaw. I thank Constantine who as always takes a very measured approach and also Anothroskon, who endorsed him, and I have no problem qualifying that the source is Vickers. She is the best international source we have so that we give accurate infomration about the Greeks in Albania. I brought it to RSN to have more support and then I will bring back the Vickers' number.--Sulmues ^(talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RSN is irrelevant, the point is we have better sources. Jeffries for examples, who gives a figure based on a survey of the literature. It's painfully obvious that you want to use Vickers and only Vickers, because she gives the lowest estimate of all. Athenean (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is Jeffries, can you bring him in a link? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We could also use the Greek scholars research that puts that number at 60,000 or do you regard that also as pov? However, all the sources are rs(the military academy of the UK doesn't publish unreliable authors)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a census with ethnic criteria, any number out forth is an estimate (or rather guesstimate). In such cases, the typical action is that a range of estimates by sources that are reliable should be provided, and that includes Vickers, the INSTAT and the CIA. All of them may have an agenda, consciously or not (for Albania's INSTAT for instance, any country's statistical agency will meddle with the numbers in accordance with state policy/priorities, just look at what the Greek agency did with the economy), but they are well-informed sources and worthy of inclusion.

And I hate to sound preachy, but seriously, could both sides please stop this bickering and behave like serious people? Does anyone truly believe that whatever we write here will influence reality on the ground, or destroy or raise our nations? The articles should try to reflect reality, and if in reality there are several sources giving different estimates, we use them all, provided they come from credible sources. The tendency for each camp to immediately and without any thought at compromise dismiss any source other than the one that conforms with its own ideal wish-world is maddening. Using only the lowest numbers or the highest will not change the actual size of the minority, whatever it is. Rant over, for now... Constantine ✍ 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I explained earlier the CIA number is completely unreliable as Vickers explains. Instat doesn't have any ethnicity figures because they're not held any longer since the 1980s, so that cannot be used either. Let's wait till Athenean brings this Jeffries and let's see if he is reliable and if he is we source from Vicker and Jeffries only. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA Factbook

The CIA Factbook on Albania [9] says: Population 3,639,453 (July 2010), Greek 3%. I did the math, and it turned out 109,183 Albanian nationals of Greek ethnicity. Beserks (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above, since we have additional sources that raise the number to 200k.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you calculate 3,6 million citizens + 800,000 Albanian nationals living in Greece = 4.4m. Now 3% of 4.4 million is 132,000. Not a big difference. I'll stick to 110,000. There is no need for calculations. The CIA Factbook is more than reliable, it explicitly states that Greeks are 3% of 3,6m = 110,000 Greeks. Beserks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Beserks, we don't need the flawed CIA data for the estimation of the population. Just the fact that the total is wrong (3.6M) vs the correct number given by the Albanian Instat (3.2M) tells you that you have right there a discrepancy of 400,000 citizens, which shows that the CIA data is incorrect. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Neither the CIA nor the Instat are flawed because CIA gives figures about 2010 while instat about January 2008.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Instat figure is 2010 estimate, not 2008. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the RSN I also added Vickers estimates.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

ZRrethues: There is no concensus: as far I see no 'resolved' tag. Also even there was you need to fill a new case about the specific claim (not a generalized one one), since she has been already rejected in the past about specific claims, by administrators [[10]]. No wonder here she contradicts all the mainstream bibliographyAlexikoua (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the results of the RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After a carefull look, the exact quote of Vickers is (p. 4):

Estimates of the ethnic Greek minority in Albania range from two to seven percent of the total population, but the generally accepted view is that today there are approximately between 45-50,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania, roughly 2 percent of the total Albanian population. According to the 1961 census, the number of Greek speakers was 40,000, and by 1981 the figure had risen to 58,758, a rise in proportion to the general increase in Albania’s population.

M. Vickers is often suscebtible to 'typographical' errors. So here she says that the census in Albania (of 1981) counted 58,758 Greeks. No wonder there was no 1981 census in Albania. The census that showed 58,758 Greeks was the 1989 census [[11]] (a census widely considered as biased and conducted by the commnunist regime).

On second look there was neither a 1961 census in Albania... Seems the entire paragraph is full of errors, not to mention that she doesn't reveal any inline.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Vickers is partisan and POV, and cannot be used to quite numbers for the Greek minority in Albania. First of all, she provides no information on how she arrived at the figure of 45,000. What sources did she use? Or did she go house to house and count minority members herself? That is highly partisan is also evident from the fact that the word "Greek" is almost always followed by the the word "nationalist", while "nationalist" is never used to describe Albanian views, as if there is no such thing as Albanian nationalism. Selected quotes follow:

• The controversial mayor of Himara, Vasil Bollano... Maybe we can use Vickers to move Vasil Bollano to Controversial mayor of Himara Vasil Bollano.

• The following month, Albanian high school students from Saranda staged demonstrations during which they burned the Greek flag and chanted “Himara is Albanian”. Apparently, members of the minorty demanding legitimate minority rights are "nationalists", but the studenets are not.

• This event was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The patience of the Albanian government had run out. In their view it was time to silence Bollano before southern Albania erupted into inter-ethnic violence. Brazen POV editorialzing

• In March 2009, Himara’s mayor was finally indicted by the Albanian prosecution... "Finally"?

• In a major concession to the minority two schools have also been granted an operating licence outside the official “Greek minority zone”, one in Korca and the other in Himara. How and why are two schools a "major concession"?

• Tirana has had to deal with the minority issue in a very measured way in order on the one hand not to anger Albanians by appearing too lenient in response to nationalist demands,... In other words, asking to be educated in their own language is a "nationalist demand" while those who oppose it for no good reason are not "nationalists".

• not to mention the generous Greek pensions of around 100-150 euros a month paid to every ethnic Greek family by the Greek government. 100-150 euros is "generous"?

For the above reasons, I don't believe this source can be considered objective regarding the numbers of the Greek minority in Albania. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments that aren't OR deductions?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments at all? Also, please indent your comments. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mixed topic

I know that I'm not bringing up something that is entirely new but ...

This article is mixing a lot of loosely related topics. Essentially the topic here is the set up people who spoke some dialect of Greek or were closely related to those who spoke Greek. However, it does not clearly cover even that topic. The reality, of course, is that the Greek langauge was a lingua franca in much of Europe, Asia, and Africa for many centuries and the identities of the various peoples and cultures that have used the language are extremely varied. Moreover the Balkans have seen a lot of cultures move in and out and the modern nation of Greece was in reality formed from many people whose ancestors had not even resided there. The article implies that the people of modern Greece are substantially more tied ethnically to the ancient Greeks or Eastern Romans than other cultures which is certainly not true at all. My suggestion would be to limit this article to the modern ethnic group related to the modern Greek nation and the Ottoman Rum millet. If it is necessary to have an article that talks in detail about older "Greek" ethnic groups those should be separate articles. But trying to mix those in here is really nationalistic propaganda (I would make the same argument regarding the modern Egyptian ethnic group vs. the ancient Egyptians).

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier for someone to treat your suggestion seriously if it wasn't for that last sentence. It reminds me of the extreme modernist/revisionist approach that is professed by a number of intellectuals inside Greece, they find it very convenient to put anyone attempting to defend a notion of continuity other than language in the same lot with ignorant ultra-nationalists. Let me explain what i understand from it: despite of all the academic works being accumulated in the creation of this article you're saying that it is a product of source manipulation and synthesis based on nationalist motives, and essentially most (if not all) of the editors that have made significant contributions here are either Greek nationalists or "victims" of this "propaganda" (?).--GroGaBa (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao, this article covers the Greek nation from the time of its ethnogenesis up to now. This is what any article about a people does. From the very early times of the emergence of the Proto-Greeks to nowadays there is a continuity of a people called Greeks, no matter the changes that every nation undergoes throughout its history. Let the sources elaborate on the relationship between ancient, medieval and modern Greeks. Such speculations about racial continuity and arbitrary conclusions about what is not true at all and how loosely related the topics are, clearly serve propaganda purposes. The Egyptians fall in the same category, such as many other nations that show a "national continuity", without taking into consideration any changes in their language, religion etc, or any other groups that they absorbed some time in their history. All these don't mean that any cultural or racial relationship of a nation to their ancient ancestors has dried up. However, this is not the key for these articles. - Sthenel (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the article's intent. But the notion of a "continuity" in this ethnic group as distinct from other ethnic groups over this entire period is a false notion (one which scholars have largely discredited). Frankly it is rarely the case that an ethnic group can be considered to be genuinely distinct for a period covering thousands of years. The fact that the modern Greeks speak a language that is arr land was part of guably more tied to ancient Greek than any other language does not, in and of itself, mean that the modern nation has more ethnic or genetic relationship to the ancient group than others around it. This is rather like the modern English arguing that, because their land was part of the ancient Roman Empire, their culture is primarily based on Roman culture and has nothing to do with Saxon or Scandinavian culture. Obviously this is not true. Or the English could argue that because their language is based on Saxon that their culture and ethnicity has nothing to do with the French, something that is also not true (thanks to the Norman conquest and other factors).

The modern Greek nation is derived from a lot of ancient peoples. Moreover the modern Turks, Macedonians, and many other peoples are ethnically, genetically, and culturally descended in part from the ancient Greeks, probably as much so as the modern Greek nation. Trying to draw too close an association between the language a people happen to speak and their ethnicity is misleading. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This general claims discussion can't go very far. I didn't mean to imply anything about this article's intent with my second sentence above, i made an analogy between your "nationalist propaganda" assertion and a somewhat relevant, and equally leveling, perspective, my actual position on this is that while the elements of continuity through the various phases of Greek history are open to academic debate, the continuity itself isn't. This might save you some time deploying another revision of the same unfocused polemic in your third post: i believe the most elementary platform this content can legitimately be seen as covering a single topic is the common definition of Greek<=>native Greek-speaker, whatever each indivisual scholar/writer has or hasn't enriched it with, it's an undisputable point of reference in western literature, and whatever argument we may use to attack it as a definition, we can't change the plain fact of its widespread use. I was implying it with my last sentence above, Sthenel was more direct (in order for this discussion to be constructive enough and worth spending time on): please check the sources, and point to specific examples where they have been misused to back the "single topic" treatment.--GroGaBa (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you (Mcorazao) have no idea about what nation means. A nation, throughout the centuries, can maintain its existence as a distinct entity. If the Turks have absorbed Greek populations and have been affected to some extent by the Greek culture, it has nothing to do with the Greek nation. The example with the English people and the Roman Empire is totally irrelevant. The English nation came to birth from the Anglo-Saxons and whether they were later affected genetically or culturally by Scandinavians, Romans, French or anyone else, the English nation is a unique national entity until our days. English people affected other modern nations too genetically or culturally; does it mean that these nations, which descend in part from English people, abolish the existence of the English nation in the sense that English people should not use the name English, because it implies more relationship with the Anglo-Saxons than the other peoples have? The Greeks aren't the remnants of the Byzantine Empire who happen to speak Greek nowadays. Of course modern Greeks have closer genetic and cultural relationship to ancient Greeks than the Turks, the Slav-Macedonians, the Albanians etc. Your ideas are plain speculations which have no base on history, genetics, social anthropology and lack in knowledge of primary terms of these fields. Indeed, this discussion can't go very far because there are (from your side) only overgeneralizations and assumptions that lead you to completely arbitrary conclusions. - Sthenel (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If we look at the case of the English we can see at least some degree of a coherent separation between the people who saw themselves as English from the populations near them (mind you, even in the case of the English one could argue that the Norman invasion created a discontinuity but let's say for the sake of argument that is not the case). Though English culture has changed drastically through the centuries at least one can say that there was some clear continuity that was distinct from any continuity from other cultures (emphasis on distinct).

The same can be said of the Greeks since the Greek Revolution. Additionally one can argue for some distinct continuity in the "Greek nation" during the Ottoman period although there is some fuzziness there (i.e. the Ottoman "Greeks" were often not of any real "Greek" descent but simply descendants of Roman Christians). One can even argue some distinct continuity with the last stages of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. But going back before that things start to become so fuzzy as to be misleading. That is, to argue that the "Greeks" of the Ottoman period are more culturally descended from the likes of Ptolemy and Diophantus than the "Arabs" and "Turks" is a complete fallacy. The reality, of course, is that many of the "Greeks" gradually adopted Arabic and Turkish as their language but the culture of the regions they inhabited was an amalgam of the "Greek" culture and other cultures just as the "Greek" culture was. The fact that any particular group continued speaking "Greek" does not, by itself, make them more connected to the "Greek" nation of the past. Moreover, bear in mind that there was a period of centuries where almost nobody called themselves "Greek". People were Roman or Christian and might speak "Greek", or might not, but the concept of the "Greek nation" was absorbed by the concept of the "Roman nation" (which in turn was partially absorbed by the "Muslim nation", then the "Turkish nation", etc.). The modern concept of the "Greek nation" was invented by the Greek revolution as a nationalistic identity for the Ottoman "Roman nation" (i.e. the Christian nation). In truth, some of the revolutionaries actually considered calling the new nation the Roman Empire but it was quickly decided that this would offend the Western Europeans who they were looking to help them. "Greece" was an easier sell to the Westerners. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao, you should use some framework to make these sweeping statements. The overwhelming academic opinion is that Modern Greeks are related to the older Greeks culturally, and in other ways (http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html). Greeks have a great number of customs, in addition to religion and language related to previous generations of people also called Greeks or Romioi/Romaioi but who were Greek speakers. Most major Christian festivals and non-Christian customs can be dated back to Greek antiquity and even prehistory (e.g. J.E. Harrison's Prolegomena to the study of Greek religion). Yes Arabs and Armenians and others adopted some Greek customs, religion, language. The Turks - much, much less so. Not language, not religion. Unless you are going to define ethnicity in genetic terms in which case we will all have to take a DNA test to see which nation's citizens we are, this kind of argument has no objective basis.Skamnelis (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you could write a book on your theories, but not an article in an encyclopedia because this is your personal point of view. You have made a whole plot to base your theory on. We've already answered to you. - Sthenel (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of me going to all the trouble to collect a large number of sources if no-one is going to read them? In brief Mxorazaor you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks/Sources_Greeks --Anothroskon (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao is just another typical anti-Hellenic racist. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. I think a lot of this goes back to Nordic race theories of the last 150 years (theories that have been utterly debunked by science), theories that seem to have crept into Hollywood portrayals of Ancient Greeks: pale white skin, blond hair and blue eyes (although '300' and 'Clash of the Titans' seem to be eradicating that mid-20th-century-era trend). Socrates wrote that Greeks (Hellenes) are the "perfect race.. neither very pale like the 'northerners,' nor very dark like the [African] 'southerners,' but possessing an ideal tone of olive skin." Some of the Ancient Greeks thought pale skin was a sign of stupidity, and marked you as a barbarian. The truth is that the Ancient Greeks were made up of numerous (dozens and dozens) of Hellenic tribes and what made you a Greek was your language and culture, etc. Experts have compared the unbroken language and successive culture of the Greek people to Chinese alone. To come in here and try to say that the "Modern Greeks" (derogatory in his manner of it) is comparable to that of the modern Egyptians is beyond ignorant. The Egyptian people suffered the massive (and I mean MASSIVE) Arab invasions that utterly wiped them out. They do not today speak Egyptian they speak 'Egyptian Arabic,' which has little to do with Coptic language. Your entire argument is weak and marks you as a racist. I don't see you in the German People discussion telling them just because they speak German does not make them German, and that because the Danes and others invaded their lands they are non-persons in the fantasy realm of your bigoted brain. The world according to you and your infinite wisdom. The scholars of the world are wrong and you are right. Slavic people and Turks are the real Greeks. Be sure to write the CIA and tell them to remove the data from their Fact database that genetically and scientifically concludes that Greeks and Southern Italians are most similar in their DNA makeup. Explain that one to me. In the end, we don't care what you think. Xeno. --Nikoz78 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The strongest

There should be a paragraph about the fact that Greece was the most powerful power in the world in the 11th century. It is not neutral--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Greece" wasn't. "Greece" didn't exist in the 11th century. Maybe you've heard that the Byzantine empire was? I'm not sure it was the strongest at that particular time. But in any case, this article is about the Greeks as an ethnic group, not about the power struggles of whatever different states thy lived in over the centuries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

About That Info Box

So Athenean where in these sources does it say that there are 500,000 Greeks in the UK? Turco85 (Talk) 10:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And the figure for Germany includes all Greek citizens which also includes Western Thrace Turks (an estimated 12,000-25,000). And where is your sources that claim that there are over 1,500,000 Greek Muslims in Turkey. I'm sure the demographics section says The Greek minority of Turkey, which numbered upwards of 200,000 people after the 1923 exchange, has now dwindled to a few thousand.Turco85 (Talk) 10:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And using Joshua Project for the Bahamas! Seriously?! That's a really reliable source isnt it? Joshua Project also estimates 388,000 Greeks in the U.S! Maybe you should remove the Joshua Project reference or use all its figures. By the way I'm only teasing you Athenean because I think you are a bit hypocritical with your editing. Please take my comments lightly. But in all seriousness, please do take my comments on board.Turco85 (Talk) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

I noticed that several of the infobox figures, if not most of them, are problematic in that they are either outdated, sourced to broken links, do not include those of ancestral descent, or simply plain wrong in that they do not state what the source does. Over the next few days I will tweak them so that they are hopefully bulletproof. I plan to include figures from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [12], whose figures generally seem to be reasonable (except for the UK, where it seems they do not include Greek Cypriots, and the former USSR, for whom they seem impossibly large). Athenean (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, I go by what I said before, you seem to pick-and-choose what you see to be a reliable source or figure. I have researched the population of Greeks in the US and Australia and found that there are other sources which supports 3 million Greek Americans and 700,000 Greek Australians. Having said that, I believe that if you are going to use this source you have to use all the figures it provides not just the ones that you are satisfied with. Turco85 (Talk) 07:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To CIA, or not to CIA– that is the question

So once again I am confused. Should this article use CIA or not? Clearly it has been argued in this discussion page that it should not be used (i.e. see section 'CIA Factbook' above). However, CIA is being used for Cyprus! So which is it? Why should we use CIA for one country and not another? I don't mind either way if CIA is used or not BUT we must have consistency.

CIA gives the following information:

• Greece. Population: 10,737,428. Greeks: 93% = 9,985,808 Greeks
• Albania. Population: 3,639,453. Greeks: 3% = 109,183 Greeks
• Cyprus. Population: 1,084,748. Greeks: 77% = 835,255 Greeks

Ironically, this article only uses CIA for Cyprus as it is the only estimate which is high!Turco85 (Talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's worth noting that CIA says the following for the population of Greece: 'percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity'. This would therefore iclude other groups such as Turks of Western Thrace.Turco85 (Talk) 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman history section

In the "Ottoman" part of the history section, there is a sweeping statement about the education in Smyrna, Aivali and Chios, claiming that it was the best anywhere. Was there a university ranking index in the Ottoman Empire? There were schools where Greeks studied elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire, also in Europe. At the very least this statement needs some back-up information. Neither this article nor the Wikipedia links to these cities nor the link to "Ottoman Greeks" mention anything about educational establishments in these places, though surely there were some. A picture rather shows an issue of the journal "Ο Λόγιος Ερμής" actually published in Vienna. By contrast nothing is said about El Greco, Korais or Rigas or any scholar of the Greek Enlightenment about which one can find information in the Wikipedia (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Greek_Enlightenment). There is no mention of the 40 or so Greek uprisings. I am not even sure that the history of Ottoman Greeks can be summarised in a few lines and if so what these few lines should say.Skamnelis (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9lions, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

CIA estimates the Greeks in Albania at 3%

The CIA estimates the Greeks in Albania at 3% of the country's total population -- 3,659,616 (July 2010 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html

PLEASE submit these information!

9lions (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The CIA is factbook is not the most reliable of sources, so I have replaced it with this [13] which is preferrable. Ian Jeffries is a reliable source, and his book moreover is a secondary source, which the CIA factbook is not. Athenean (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean's source[[14]] says that 1.7% are Greeks. 200,000 Greeks in Albania make 1.7% of the total population, so it gives 11,764,705 Albanian citizens.[15] There must be something wrong with these sources who add up to 200000 Greeks in Albania.Beserks (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I live in Albania and I think the most credible number of Greeks living in Albania is 50 000-70 000 or even less, and these numbers are supported by the majority of the statistics and are more credible than 200 000, which is a number that can also include ethnically mixed Albanian-Greek people. Given the fact that after the fall of Communism in Albania a large percentage of the Greek community in Albania leaved for Greece or other countries I think the real figure of the Greek minority in the country today is even smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Greeks in Lebanon and Syria

This should be added to the infobox. 7000 Greeks in Lebanon and 3000 Greeks in Syria: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ηaving read up on them they seem to identify as Greeks even though they are Muslim now so it could definately be added. Please go ahead. I had already mentioned them in the religion section I think.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the numbers for Syria, according to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their numbers are 1500 [17] it seems like a more reliable source then the one above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek Muslims

I have removed, twice today, the claim that "There are over 1,400,000 Greek Muslims though most identify as Turks" from the infobox. This has been revert-warred into the box multiple times over the last few weeks by an IP (94.195.139.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.65.208.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and by English Bobby (talk · contribs), even though it was marked as unsourced all the time.

• Question: English Bobby, are you also that IP? In that case, you are deep in the red for disruptive revert-warring. Please stop. If you aren't that IP, you are nevertheless still deep in the red for revert-warring. Please stop.
• The figure is inherently implausible and very likely highly exaggerated. 1.4 million might be somewhere near a realistic figure for the number of people who have some Greek-Muslim ancestry in Turkey today, but there is no basis for claiming that these people today actually still are Greek.
• English Bobby was justifying his reverts with a blanket link to Greek Muslims and alleged sources there, but the figure in that article was unsourced too.

I expect this to stay out unless new sources are brought forward and consensus is achieved about them first. Attempts to reinsert that claim without prior talkpage consensus will be treated has disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the figure of 1.5 million is entirely unsourced. I myself searched a bit and found absolutely nothing regarding numbers. Might be easier to find a figure for a more well-defined group, such as Pontic Greek-speaking Muslims. Athenean (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of notable Greeks in Infobox

Having the Greek nation such an enormous and glorious culture, it is a pitty that our infobox has so few characters -besides being the election totally freakish. The Greek-Americans article is by far much better ilustrated. Here down I just show the examples of other nations and their infoboxes:

French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people

English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Italians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_people

Germans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_people

I think that a new "gallery" should be presented in this article, comprising the whole aspects of Greek history: Ancient, Byzantine, Modern, Contemporary (maybe also including diapora Greeks). I notice that there is a sort of "monopoly" in the editing of this article, so I bring this subjet here so as people to express themselves. There are certain subjects that must be concensed: Why is El Greco present and not Odyseas Elytis ? Why Plato and not Socrates or Aristotle ? Why Pericles and not Leonidas? Why not Hipoccrates ? Why Capodistrias and not Kolokotronis or Karaiskakis ? Why Venizelos and not Konstantinos Karamanlis -elder- ? Why not any woman? Well, we won't be able to include every single glorious Greek, but for sure if we place a 20-25 image gallery it would be much fair to honour than a biased "poker" picture gallery. I think that a 20-picture is OK.- I would include:

ANCIENT: Socrates, King Leonidas, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Alexander the Great.

MEDIEVAL: (Byzantine): Helena of Constantinople, Nikephoros Fokas, Basileios Boulgaroktonos, Konstantinos Palaiologos

MODERN: Theodoros Kolokotronis, Georgios Karaiskakis, Lascarina Bouboulina, Ioannis Capodistrias, .

CONTEMPORARY: Eleftherios Venizelos, Georgios Papanikolaou, Odysseas Elytis, Mikis Theodorakis, Archbishop Makarios, Pyrros Dimas.

These are just the 20 I happen to have in mind this exact moment. Surely others may have other 20, I think that with consensus in the close future we can make a gallery worth of the glorious nation we belong. Periptero (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Those photo-montages with 20+ people definitely seem to be in vogue these days. I would suggest we include Pericles and El Greco, as they are extremely notable and well-known (possibly more than anyone, and we have a pretty good idea of what they looked actually like), and I would replace Helena of Constantinople, who may or may not have been Greek, with Hypatia, who is also more notable and well-known. Otherwise you selection seems quite good by me. Athenean (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree re Helena and Hypatia, but I have a major problem with the "modern" section, which essentially covers only the Greek Revolution. If we want to include the post-Byzantine and Ottoman Greek world, then we should include Rigas Feraios and Korais, Kapodistrias as the greatest and last great Greek statesman of the pre-independence world, Gemistos Pletho and/or Bessarion for their role as intermediaries between Byzantium and the Renaissance, and El Greco. On the modern period, I agree with Venizelos and Makarios, who are both easily recognizable and emblematic figures, although I would substitute Cavafy for Elytis (Nobel prize or no, Cavafy is far more widely read internationally) and Maria Callas for Theodorakis or Papanikolaou. On the ancient selection, Leonidas is IMO not a real contender, Pericles is far more important and recognizable. I'd also see if we could fit in Herodotus and Euripides or Sophocles. Constantine ✍ 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cplakidas I think that before having this conversation you should adopt some of the norms found in all articles dealing with people, who at some time of their history used similar names. You can't possibly include in the same category people of a completely different ethnic background just because they happen to use the same ethnonym in modern times. Adding in the same category Aristotle and Kapodistrias is a propagation of a national myth that somehow there is a continuity leading from Aristotle to Kapodistrias. Ongentheow isn't a Swedish king but a Swedish one despite the fact that modern Swedes are primarily descended from that Germanic tribe and Darius I of Persia isn't an Iranian king. However, regarding Periptero's list such a connection doesn't exist in many of the people he wants to add. As I don't agree with adding Eliza Dushku on Albanians because she's half Danish-English, I don't agree with adding people that aren't even ethnic Greeks on this article. Laskarina Bouboulina would fit perfectly in the article if it was titled modern Greeks but as far as it includes ancient and byzantine Greeks too it doesn't make any sense.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw piling up a lot of pictures on an infobox just makes it harder for the page to load(like on Turkish people, where 28 pictures have been added), is extremely trivial and will always get targeted by all kinds of nationalist factions and users.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri mate, that is exactly the point we try to show. That from antiquity onwards there is continuity in the Greek nation. Alcibiades, Bessarion, Petros Mavromichalis, Penelope Delta, Ioannis Metaxas and Vasilis Hatzipanagis for instance are all Hellenes. This is what this article is all about. Continuity is certain. Maybe not in your Fallmerayerian view, but yes indeed in the majority of people . What must be clear is that no one is claiming racial purity, since of course blood is scattered upon time passing by and because of many people stepping through Greece. By the way ... weren't you one of the most fervent adherents about historical continuity in the Albanian nation even up to grouping ethnic groups that openly reject being classified as "Shqiptars" like the Arbereshe from Italy and the Arvanites from Greece? Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Luke 6:41) Periptero (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Periptero dear, there is absolutely no need take seriously or get worked up by the neo-Fallmerayerists. If we did, this article wouldn't even exist. Just ignore their tedious, intellectually dishonest WP:OR screeds, and lets get on with our business. Now, based on the (relevant) comments above, I would propose: Plato (more widely read than Socrates, about whom less is known for sure), Aristotle, Pericles, Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Hippocrates (medicine), Archimedes (math/science), and one each of Sophocles/Euripides (literature) and Thucydides/Herodotus (historiography). I would like to keep Leonidas as he is the most notable figure from the Greco-Persian Wars. For the Late Antiquity/Byzantine/Medieval era, I would include: Hypatia, Nikephoros Fokas, Basileios Boulgaroktonos, Gemistus Pletho, and Cyril and Methodius. Bessarion and Constantine XI don't quite make the cut IMO. I would also definitely agree with including El Greco. For the modern period, include: Theodoros Kolokotronis, Georgios Karaiskakis, Lascarina Bouboulina, Ioannis Capodistrias. Not sure that Korais and Rigas Feraios are as widely known outside Greek circles. And for contemporary, include: Eleftherios Venizelos, Georgios Papanikolaou, Constantine Cavafy, Mikis Theodorakis/Maria Callas, Archbishop Makarios, Pyrros Dimas. I would like to keep Papanikolaou as arguably the best known modern Greek scientist, and I agree with Constantine that Cavafy is more widely read and known than Elytis. I am split regarding Theodorakis and Maria Callas. Callas is probably more well-known, but Theodorakis arguably made a bigger contribution to Greek music. Τhat's 25, which is a lot, but still less than the 27 over at French People and the 28 over at Turkish People. I would also like to include Cleopatra in somewhere, although that would necessitate removing someone (maybe Makarios?). That would make it 10 ancient, 9 modern/contemporary, and 6 in between. As far as layout, I think the one over at Poles is probably the most attractive, somewhat wider and no more than 5 per row. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think that Rigas should be included, since he lies at the very heart and root of modern Greek (and by extension all other Balkan) nationhood, and there should be some figure representing the Greek Enlightenment. As for the selections, I'd favour Herodotus over Thucydides simply because he was the "father of history", and Euripides over Sophocles because his work is IMO more perfected and "modern". Otherwise, I largely agree with Athenean. Constantine ✍ 08:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

i havent even looked at the collage or whatever before but my general views is that modern people should be represented mostly (i see NO need to downplay modern and much more essential for us contemporary greeks history in favor of wellknown premodern figures as most articles do) and that political figures should probably not be represented at least as much since they can be controversial..btw whats with the albo that trolls most greek articles..skanderbeg is 'albanian' but bouboulina isnt 'greek'? why dont you clean your national myth infested house of an article zjarri before coming over here...?85.75.248.240 (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@Periptero I can start another RfC like I did on another article for some similar obvious changes. @85.75 please don't make wp:npa or wp:rant comments. Btw I can find your previous username by asking for CU so please use your account even when you're making such comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree per Cplakidas and Athenean. One more or one less doesn't the difference: we should have personalities from all the major periods of history. I also suggest to add some Byzantine Emperors like Constantine or Justinian.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Alexikoua you do know that Constantine and Justinian were Illyrians or Thracians, don't you?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, we are moving towards the 25-pictured montage. I would be great if other members of Wikiproject Greece give their opinion also. We can start is setting those we all agree, and leave the rest for discussion. Up top now we've got:

ANCIENT (Agreed): Aristotle, Pericles, Alexander the Great.

ANCIENT (To discuss): Socrates, Plato, King Leonidas, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Thucydides, Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, Homer, Cleopatra

BYZANTINE -up to 1500 A.D.- (Agreed): Hypatia, Nikephoros Fokas, Basileios Boulgaroktonos,

BYZANTINE (To discuss): Gemistus Pletho,Konstantinos Palaiologos, Bessarion,

MODERN -1500 A.D. to 1900 A.D.- (Agreed): Theodoros Kolokotronis, Georgios Karaiskakis, Lascarina Bouboulina, Ioannis Capodistrias, El Greco.

MODERN (To discuss):Rigas Feraios, Adamantios Korais,

CONTEMPORARY (agreed): Eleftherios Venizelos, Georgios Papanikolaou, Pyrros Dimas.

CONTEMPORARY (to discuss): Odysseas Elytis, Mikis Theodorakis, Maria Callas, Constantine Cavafy, Archbishop Makarios

Up to now we agree in 15. If there are new options should go for the discussion item. I suggest to try to fill the 10 remaining with the ones we have to discuss. Periptero (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could replace Karaiskakis with Rigas Feraios. We might not need two military leaders from 1821, Kolokotronis is probably enough. A thought: What about Homer, perhaps instead of Euripides? Yes, he might not even be real, but even so the Iliad and the Odyssey are. Also, probably the first Greek known by name, and probably among the best known. Other than that, I think I am pretty much in agreement with Cplakidas. Athenean (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Homer belongs on that list, I am ashamed not to have thought of him at all... Also agree re Karaiskakis, Kolokotronis is either way far better known what with his statues and presence on coins and banknotes, and perhaps more representative of the klephts and the pre-revolution Moreot "nobility". Constantine ✍ 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you you know I just thought about Homer after writing the whole subject and felt lazy to edit again? Thanx for the adding. I thought we all had agreed to have both Kolokotronis and Karaiskakis. I suggest not to discuss the ones he had already agreed and try to focus to figure out who the remaining 10 will be. This way, we can add Homer and Rigas or any other we consider without erasing anyone (we have 10 more to add !). In my personal opinion I would leave Karaiskakis. Although Kolokotronis is by far THE icon of the Revolution, Karaiskakis represents much more the klephtic spirit other than the remarkable military commander he was. Plus, as it was stated Kolokotronis represents the moreot nobility, whereas Karaiskakis is the image of the Sterea Ellada. Paying a visit to the Greek Wikipedia leaves the reader with quite a different impresion about him than the English one. Periptero (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward: we have by now 14 "AGREED" that will remain settled so far. We therefore need to decide the other 11. I suggest we place a deadline by Dec-31. The 11 that I chose from the "TO DISCUSS"-list are these:

ANCIENT: Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Homer; Herodotus; Socrates.

MEDIEVAL: Gemistus Pletho

MODERN: Rigas Feraios,

CONTEMPORARY: Archbishop Makarios; Mikis Theodorakis; Odysseas Elytis

It would be useful if the others use this same format here downwards in the election so as to be able to separate the new we agree, and keep on deciding till we reach the 25-notables. Periptero (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I seem to be unable to decide. After some thought, I propose the following:

ANCIENT:Homer; Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Herodotus; Archimedes; Cleopatra

LATE ANTIQUITY/MEDIEVAL: Cyril and Methodius; Gemisthus Pletho

MODERN:Rigas Feraios

CONTEMPORARY:Constantine Cavafy, Maria Kallas

I decided to remove Nikiphoros Phokas, as he is too close chronologically to Basill II, and quite similar (military exploits), even related. By removing him, I made room to accomodate both Karaiskakis and Rigas Feraios. I'd love to include Pythagoras, Euclid, Solon, and many many others, but oh well. I think we will need the input of more users if we are to reach a consensus, but it seems there aren't too many active member in WP:GR these days. Athenean (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Let us show common sence. DO NOT REMOVE the 14 already agreed ! Those 14 remain, therefore both "Nicky" Phokas and "Billy" Boulgaroktonos are in. We had reached an understanding about this. No need to make any room to anyone. There are 14 chosen and other 11 to choose. We should simply vote so as to decide the other 11 in which we all have different views. We vote, we count, we select. Easy as that. Else we will finish this whole subject by Dec. 31 but 2012 !! Periptero (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I will chose this:

ANCIENT: Plato; Homer; Herodotus; Socrates.

CONTEMPORARY: Archbishop Makarios; Mikis Theodorakis;

I think that Gregoris Lambrakis and Nikos Gallis must be in the list.200.42.99.13 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

great job ! i think tha all the greeks in wp should be able to vote, not justa the member of project greece. there are too many ancient greeks. i do not identify very jmuch with them. modern greeks are closer to ordinary people. how is is that ARI ONASSIS is not among the chosen? hope many other join. in thegreek tv there was a similar contest. 200.42.99.13 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Aristotelis Onassis, Gregoris Lambrakis, Nikos Gallis, Pythagoras, Euclid, Solon ... we are such a great nation ... it is true that many will remain out and it seems unfair but we decided to choose only 25. Among the ones we were electing it seems to be a thread: Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Homer; Herodotus; Gemisthus Pletho and Rigas Feraios are from now on included in the selected list. We have up to now 21 and we must decide the remaining 4 so as to reach 25. Up to what I find I see that we still have a sort of dispertion in the CONTEMPORARY period.Periptero (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Archimedes, Cleopatra, Cyril and Methodius, Maria Callas. And I still think we should replace Elytis with Cavafy, as the latter is more well-known. Athenean (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think both Archimedes and Cleopatra are a great idea. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither Elytis nor Cavafy ar yet chosen. As a matter of fact they are still in the run for the last 4. Among the remaining I am for Archimedes, Socrates, Odysseas Elytis and Archbishop Makarios. Periptero (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Today is the deadline. If there are new voters wishing to decide maybe a visit to the Great Greeks page may help.-Periptero (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work.- Pitty I entered into far too late.- My vote for the last 4 go to: Socrates, Archimedes, Archbishop Makarios, Mikis Theodorakis. 186.136.121.209 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote for: Socrates, Constantine Cavafy, Archbishop Makarios, Mikis Theodorakis. I would like to know which is Cleopàtra's contribution to culture besides being Caesar's and Anthony's qualified mistress, so as to be proposed.200.126.168.218 (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cypriots are also Greeks !!! There are plenty in our island that offered thier lives for Greece: Afxentiou, Karaoli, Demetriou, Palikarides ... they were not even mentioned here. From the ones remaining I select: Archbishop Makarios, Constantine Cavafy,Mikis Theodorakis and Archimedes.200.123.164.77 (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Archbishop Makarios, Constantine Cavafy, Mikis Theodorakis and Socrates. Nice job Peripetro, no matter yo are part albanian.190.226.26.101 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am very proud of my cultural heritage and my multiethnic family background.- Periptero (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The eternal greek problem. My opinion is that you discuss abt the most difficult collage of wikipedia (maybe for that reason the existing collage is fine)

I think it would be more right a collage with only modern greeks (from byzantine to modern period), to avoid funny situations, as it would be karaiskakis or bouboulina besides plato and pericles...Neither in italian article you will see Ramazotti or Rossini next to Julius Caesar. Just because we modern Greeks use the same demonyme with the ancients, doesnt mean we belong to the same national groupe Greco22 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt be more interesting and fair a collage with only modern (from byzantine times) Greeks with a reference below, stating that the ancient period wasnt included? The ancients are moreover well known to everybody

It would be a challenge a collage only with moderns. I believe it can be easily a sellection of a good number of them. We shouldnt undervalue this period of our history that comes until today. Greco22 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco22, we proposed this whole subject a couple of weeks ago. We discussed, we agreed and disagreed. We invited others and people got involved. Many of your intentions are very interesting. I think that this gallery may in the future be splitted between "ancient" Greeks (covering Antiquity and Middle Ages) and "modern" Greeks (covering Modern and Contemporary Ages). But this time we decided to start by setting a new-gallery and by discussing and voting we have arrived to a result (which will be published later). I think we do not undervaluate the modern period but of course the ancient is far more glorious. Regarding the continuity in time (which you happen to denny), it is in fact a major and pivotal point in the modern Greek identity -as I stated before in this section-, therefore this whole article. Else you should require for a chenge in the article itself and to be split in two: Ancient Greeks & Modern Greeks. Τί δύσκολον; Τὸ ἐαυτὸν γνῶναι. Τί εὔκολον; Τὸ ἄλλῳ ὑποτίθεσθαι (Θαλῆς) Periptero (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the conversation yestarday, so thats why I didnt have the opportunity to express my opinion

I dont deny the greek "continuity", neither I support to split the article. I simply say that it is a strange a "mixed" collage such this, cause modern Greeks we dont belong to the same GROUP with ancients (religion, language, customs etc...). They are back at least 2000 years. ---Italy is a fine example---

So I strongly doubt abt a collage of Karaiskakis next to Pericles. Dont you see that it is strange or even funny? I think modern Greeks have our roots from Byzantine times (for example Nikiphoros Phokas' times and so) until today. It is well known that "national identity" didnt exist during early roman and byzantine times cause of religion

Another solution could be to create two collages: one for Greeks of ancient times, one for Greeks of modern (byzantine) times Greco22 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco, I do not find it funny to have Karaiskakis next to Pericles, since from the region where my Greek family hails, it is normal to believe in cultural and racial continuity, therefore we have King Leonidas side by side with Kyriakoulis Mavromichalis. But this is not the scope of the whole contest. We were just choosing more Greek notables to be added to the 5-existing picture chart (where you have Pericles grouped with El Greco, Alexander, Kapodistrias and Venizelos). What you point out -which may even have strong elements- would be useful to a further discussion so as to re-organize the whole article in the future.Periptero (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "national concience", according to Herodotus, Greeks are defined by the four principles of Ὅμαιμον (same blood), Ὁμόγλωσσον (same language), Ὁμόθρησκον (same religion) & Ὁμότροπον Ἔθος (same customs). Even if the first part of the "equation" (omaimon), may be today out of the question for certain people, the other three parts are still universally valid (omoglosson & omotropon for sure, omothriskon by the switch from paganism to Christianity). There is an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia. This way, when we chose people from the Byzantine period we tried to to find at least "Greek" Byzantines so as not to lead to useless confrontations (therefore the reasons why Constantine The Great and Justinian weren't even discussed, although -personally- they perfectly qualified). This article supports Hellenic ethnic and cultural continuity upon times, but by no means at all adheres to racial purity. I think that is pefectly clear. I see no match at all with Italy (region) where since ancient times had Latins, Italics, Hellenic, Etruscan, Punic and Celtic grouped all together, only sharing geography and not creating an ethnogenesis. Neither with modern Italians who have a huge cultural and ethnic diversity. Periptero (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to convey my thoughts in just a few words, but for a more comprehensive understanding I suggest to read Arnold Toynbee's "The Greeks and their Heritages", 1981 Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ISBN 0-19-215256-4, where you will find that it is neither by chance nor by coincidence that we bear the same name of our ancient ancestors (Έλληνες) Periptero (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Results for the Infobox Gallery contest

Gentlemen, I hereby publish the results of the contest we were holding so as to make a new 25-picture gallery in the Infobox. There was enough discussion above so I will just show that the elected by popular decisition are:

ANCIENT: Aristotle; Pericles; Alexander the Great; Plato; King Leonidas; Hippocrates; Homer; Herodotus; Socrates; Archimedes.

MEDIEVAL (BYZANTINE) -up to 1500 A.D.-: Hypatia; Nikephoros Fokas; Basileios Boulgaroktonos; Gemisthus Pletho.

MODERN -1500 A.D. to 1900 A.D.-: Theodoros Kolokotronis; Georgios Karaiskakis; Lascarina Bouboulina; Ioannis Capodistrias; El Greco; Rigas Feraios .

CONTEMPORARY: Eleftherios Venizelos; Georgios Papanikolaou; Pyrros Dimas; Constantine Cavafy; Archbishop Makarios.

I will submitt this list to the WP-GR project administrators and they will set things forth. I doesn't necessary mean that there will be no changes, but at least I want to point out which were the results. Also, if these 25-men happen to be the official gallery it won't be permanent since requests for ammendments should be done after reasonable periods of time. Thank you all for your time and dedication.Periptero (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:GR "administrators" as such are inactive, but either way this is not necessarily a formal issue. If it is agreed upon between involved editors, then that suffices. I have only one objection to this list: for the Byzantine period, Basil II and Phokas are too close chronologically., so I'd suggest removing Phokas and adding some other ruler, IMO either Michael VIII Palaiologos or Alexios I Komnenos. This is IMO further necessary as only after 1071 (and certainly after 1261) can one speak of Byzantium as a virtually "Greek" empire. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sent a message to Alexikoua as well. Proceed as you consider is the best. My task is over. It is up to you now. Alexios Komnenos seems alright for me. I would like that either you or Alexi or other skilled editor be involved and perform the modification of the infobox gallery.Periptero (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the conversation yestarday, so thats why I didnt have the opportunity to express my opinion

I dont deny the greek "continuity", neither I support to split the article. I simply say that it is a strange a "mixed" collage such this, cause modern Greeks we dont belong to the same GROUP with ancients (religion, language, customs etc...). They are back at least 2000 years. ---Italy is a fine example---

So I strongly doubt abt a collage of Karaiskakis next to Pericles. Dont you see that it is strange or even funny? I think modern Greeks have our roots from Byzantine times (for example Nikiphoros Phokas' times and so) until today. It is well known that "national identity" didnt exist during early roman and byzantine times cause of religion

Another solution could be to create two collages: one for Greeks of ancient times, one for Greeks of modern (byzantine) times Greco22 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco, what you say has merit, however this is not the point here. The collage is meant to represent the article as it stands now, and that means ancient and medieval and modern Greeks, whatever the term may have meant at each time. The points you raise are the subject for another discussion altogether, which, for better or worse, is not really within Wikipedia's purview to resolve. Constantine ✍ 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cplakidas that the portrait gallery should match the scope of the article. To avoid the "funny"-ness that Greco is mentioning, which is a valid point, I suggest placing them in chronological order, starting with Homer. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Placing the 25 in chronological order beginning with Homer and finishing with Pyrros Dimas seems alright to me. What I still do not understand is what makes funny to have Pericles and Karaiskakis in the same chart. I haven't read anyone up to now claiming that having both Pericles next to Capodistrias in the same gallery (as it is at present) was funny. I would really find disgusting to think that the "funny"-ness relies on Karaiskakis being a poor-born and illiterate whereas Capodistrias to be qualified enough just for being an aristocrat of recognized nobility. Periptero (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco is simply saying that Karaiskakis was a Greek in a different way than Pericles, because the markers of ancient Greek identity aren't the same as those of modern Greek identity.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They are both ὁμοούσιοι Έλληνες ("Homoousian" Greeks). Here go some interesting examples: Lambros Koutsonikas -one of the main Souliotic leaders- refered to the Souliotes in his collected memoirs, as the descendants of "Hellenic Epirotes" who had gathered in the mountains so as to flee from the Roman army attacks. Athanase Psalidas, who was Ali Pasha's clerk stated in his writings that the Souliotes were "Greek fighters" (Γραίκους πολεμιστές) remnants of "Ancient Hellenic tribes". Meli Pasha, Ali pasha's son refered to the Souliotes not as "Romans" (Ρωμαίους) or "Rums" (Ρωμιούς) which would imply simply "Christians", but as "Romegans" (Ρωμέγους) which means "Hellenes". Regarding you Zjarri mate: Do not forgett to take a flower to Fallmerayer's grave yard. I have nothing more to add. "It is hard to kick against the pricks." (Acts of the Apostles 9:5) Periptero (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Periptero's proposal. Very good selection of personalities.13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably late to the party, but I'll just register here that I'm personally not really convinced of the whole idea – the whole image gallery thing seems a rather silly gimmick to me, which through the mere power of habit has taken on a life of its own on Wikipedia and becomes ever more and more overgrown, depriving infoboxes of their actual primary purpose (providing ready bits of information). Such galleries, especially if they have as many items as planned here, either get so huge that they push the actual infobox contents below the screen, rendering the whole idea of the infobox useless, or they have to be so tiny that nobody can see the actual images.

But that said, a more concrete thing: which images are you going to use; has that been clarified? I just noticed the presence of Hypatia in the list. There is no known contemporary portrait of Hypatia. There isn't even a near-contemporary tradition of semi-fictional portraits, like what we typically get with the more classical figures. What image are you going to use? Those we have on the Hypatia article are either artistically worthless, uninformative, or plain off-topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I can't find any images of Leonidas either. Only modern statues of unspeakable ugliness, and a neoclassical painting that isn't much better. Are there classical sculptures of him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And more: What about Gemistus Pletho? We currently haven't even got anything for him in his own article. And for the twentieth-century figures, please keep in mind that we cannot use anything non-free here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I may not agree with some of the choices but I do consider a great job we have done by voting. I think that the time for the debate is now over. Regarding the images, i think we should use the Wikipedia existing ones. For modern personalities, everyone has a picture. Hypatia's article has one, Leonidas article has one and Gemistos Plithon has one (besides there are others in WP commons). The "ugliness" or the "artistically worthless" is not the objective of the gallery, just to better illustrate the article itslef.200.42.99.13 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Gemistus Pletho has no image, only a photograph of a manuscript page. commons:Category:Gemistus Pletho has two images, both of dubious copyright status and unknown sources, and therefore likely candidates for deletion; one of them a (likely copyrighted) photograph of a medal, and the other an artistically worthless piece of cheap early-20th-cent. or 19th-cent. book illustration, possibly still in copyright and without any actual illustrative historical value. It doesn't serve to "illustrate" anything, because quite obviously it is neither an authentic portrait, nor contemporary, nor a document of an artistically significant tradition as some ancient portraits are. Hypatia's article, when you last looked at it, had an image that was that of another person erroneously inserted there (now changed); the only item that's useable is the Raphael fragment from the School of Athens (which is artistically valuable, but unhistoric). At the Leonidas article, there is the David painting (which is only hilarious in its pompousness, and worthless as an historical illustration), and various pictures of modern statues (which illustrate the pompous modern nationalist hero worship connected to Leonidas, but not Leonidas himself, and I will strenuously oppose having our coverage of this personality be taken over by the hateful aesthetics of that kind of material). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a top-model's book; so the purpose is not to show their physicial appearence was/is, just to point out the importance of these people within the article "Greeks". We honour these people by placing them in the gallery. The matter discussed shouldn't be if the image of Gemistos Plithon shows his exact appearence but to have him honoured there or not -a fact that we already did-. Images per se are secondary. The same happens with Leonidas ! What is the problem if the statue is modern or ancient and if it shows the "real" Leonidas or the nationalist spirit-one? Neither with classical pieces or copies we may be certain. If you do not share the view of those who have taken part in this movement that started some weeks ago, please move on. But do not look for arguments that you should have expressed before. This is a settled matter, where people spent there time thinking for a better illustration of the article. You were absent. 200.42.99.13 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if "images per se are secondary", why are we even wasting our most valuable screen space on them? Images should be used to inform. If they are not informative, they are useless. The idea of having a section of that infobox devoted to symbolically "honouring" certain arbitrarily chosen people is alien to Wikipedia, and in fact directly contradicts any number of basic policies of this place (WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV...). This is not what we should be doing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I think of it, all the statues appear to be modern and situated in Greece, which makes the photographs non-free and hence unuseable. See commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

a.- "Images per se are secondary" in the way you are trying to place their importance. They are to inform of course, but not about the physical apperance itself. If Capodistrias had curly hair or Karaiskakis a pony tail is not the informative question.

b.- "why are we even wasting our most valuable screen space on them?" Because after Periptero's proposal an important group of people who are comitted in the mantainance of this article and WP Greece thought it would be important to reform the picture gallery in the shape of others better ilustrated.

c.- Abt "honouring certain arbitrarily chosen people", if you happen to read above, you will find that there was a proposal, a discussion, a concensus and an election. There was also publicity (both here and in WP Greece Project). A 25 picture gallery elected by more than 10 people, is less arbitrary than a 5 picture gallery stated by only one individual. If you understand this as the "tyranny of the majority", is a discussion we should set privately.

d.- The argument that "directly contradicts any number of basic policies of this place" is in fact your own POV, not shared by the majority. 200.42.99.13 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

About (a): if we are not interested in what people looked like, why would we want to show images of them? About (d): Just make the thought experiment. What would happen if you wrote into the article, in actual text: "The most important and representative Greeks of history were Pericles, Socrates, Gemistus Pletho, … etc."? You'd be reverted within minutes, for an obvious violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Now, you are going to say the exact same thing. Only, you are not going to do so openly, but insinuating it through the symbolic act of your choice of images. What makes you think that is in any way better and more acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on Fut, we all know that this gallery thing is a harmless foible. If we're going to have images, it does not matter if its one, four or thirty. If we want to be purists, then there should be no images at all in any general article, because who are we to decide what image is truly representative? This would only lead to arguments ad infinitum. At least there was a discussion where rightly or wrongly, a consensus was reached. Constantine ✍ 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Don't worry, I'm quite aware I'll probably remain the lone voice in the wilderness here. But this nevertheless needs to be said once. Anyway, fundamentals aside, it still remains a fact that this process was a bit careless in that it decided on personalities without considering availability of the actual pictures. There is no image of Pletho availabe (both of the ones on Commons are going to be deleted), and only low-quality ones for several of the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some slightly iconoclastic comments above. But maybe I'm wrong. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FutPerf that this whole image gallery thing, though perhaps appropriate to a cheap Proti Dimotikou textbook, is out of place in a serious international encyclopedia (even if other articles have it). But I don't have the patience FutPerf has to discuss at length. --Macrakis (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that generally if ethnic groups articles must have galleries like this one, they shouldn't be focused on particular personages but on info about the people themselves. Four pictures with folk costumes of Greeks would be much better and representative than even 100 portraits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned a picture is worth a thousand words. So you have ten pictures and you save quite a few words. Future is right of course in the sense that it is POV to select certain Greeks among all the possible ones. He is also right about the quality of some pictures. But in the end, highlighting a group of distinguished Greeks, whose contributions to Greece are great and undisputed, is something that adds a powerful visual punch to the article which, in turn, makes the article more interesting and aids in highlighting visually the diachronic presence of the Greeks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that regarding the "Proti Dimotiki" argument, for many readers, Wikipedia is their first introduction to a subject. In addition, not all of our readers are scholars, and a surprising number are quite young. However, Fut. Perf.'s point about the images is a valid one (and one which had escaped me). We definitely have a problem on our hands as far as Gemistos Plethon goes, and possibly for Hypatia and Archimedes as well. Ancient portraits tend to be mostly of statesmen and leaders, as such portraits were undoubtedly quite expensive. Unsurprisingly, it seems like scientists and mathematicians were broke in antiquity as well. Athenean (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no ancient portraits regarding ancient Greece.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly portraits worked after life, but what we do get in classical antiquity, with people like Alexander or Pericles (but also Socrates or Homer, so it's not just statesmen), is quite significant artistic traditions defining a consistent conventional type of physiognomy for each individual. Some of these may well ultimately reflect authentic memories of somebody's actual appearance, but even if they don't, the existence of the artistic type is in itself interesting enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I really appreciate all the opinions that were written down so far. But if you happen to read the above topic "Pictures of notable Greeks in Infobox", you will find that when I brought up the idea of extending the gallery I asked for consensus. I didn't mean to ceate this great disaster. It would have been really interesting that all these considerations that two or three disenting voices are stating ("...modern Greeks we dont belong to the same GROUP with ancients ..."; "...the whole image gallery thing seems a rather silly gimmick to me..."; "...it doesn't serve to illustrate anything, because quite obviously it is neither an authentic portrait..."; "... illustrate the pompous modern nationalist hero worship..."; "...the statues appear to be modern and situated in Greece, which makes the photographs non-free and hence unuseable..."; "...appropriate to a cheap Proti Dimotikou textbook, is out of place in a serious international encyclopedia...", etc.) would have been pointed out before the whole subject carried on. It would have been really usefull that these statements were exposed before a quite important amount of people got involved. They may have even taken into serious consideration. Your arguments gentlemen,(which may be valid, may de not) could have also helped in improving this whole work. But unfortunately, those voices were silent. We only had Zjarri and his Fallmerayerian echo.Periptero (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Forget him, we have a real problem with Gemistos Plethon. The only two images of him are going to be deleted. We need an alternative. Athenean (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What about this one ? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Gemisto_Pletone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Periptero (talk • contribs)

Ah, that's a great image for a change. Have we got a reference confirming it's supposed to be him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pletho died in 1452 and the earliest date for the painting is 1459.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not really a problem though. We have the identity confirmed here [18] (reliable source, written by a specialist scholar, even though just a blog, should be sufficient for our purposes.) Good find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Athenean (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why some comments have been made regarding the cheapness of the idea. First a Proti Dimotikou reader is not cheap at all. It has become a classic, especially the early editions. Second Wikipedia is cheaper than cheap. It's free. So the price is not an issue. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)