Template talk:Greeks

Why the link to Anti-Hellenism?

Why would anybody insist on having a red link to a deleted page here? If anybody has concrete plans for recreating it - without falling foul of the prohibition of re-creating content deleted at AfD, i.e. creating something substantially different from the old deleted article - then why should this link be included here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, could you guys please stop edit-warring about it, like, for instance, now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's delete all red links while we're at it. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Persecution" section

I'm going to remove the "persecution" section from this template, for the following reasons:

It is poor taste to pick out this group of articles to push forward the image of Greeks in historical victim role. It's not done in other comparable templates.
It's tendentious and POV: this goes both for the decision to have a "persecution" section but not a section referring to Greeks in those episodes of their history where they were the aggressors (don't tell me such don't exist). It also goes for the selection of articles into this section (the implication that, for instance, the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is primarily about a story of persecution against Greeks may appear self-evident to some here, but certainly isn't straightforward NPOV.)
Most importantly, every single article linked to from this section is of alarmingly poor quality. They are all hotbeds of POV-pushing (from various sides), edit-wars, and have ended up as abominable dumps of propaganda junk and counter-propaganda junks. Unfortunately, no prospect of improvement in sight. These are not articles we ought to be proud of, and certainly not articles we should direct our readers to in a showcase of our coverage of Greek topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we just suppose to ignore the fact that the Greeks were persecuted? What kind of representation of Greek History and the Greek people is that? Nobody has a perfectly clean history. The Jewish people have an entire section related to their persecution, and the Greeks should just forget and/or ignore theirs? Come on. Not adding that information in the template is by itself a reason for POV. If you don't like the persecution heading title stick it under the history section. Don't tell me those articles you deleted from the template are not an important part of the history of the Greeks because they are. _{El Greco}^(talk) 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't accept is the inherent implication that it is a characteristic of Greek history that Greeks were consistently at the receiving end of persecution. They weren't. Not in 1821-30, not in 1919-1922, and not in 1963-1974. The comparison with the Jews is an absurd overstatement of navel-gazing ethnic masochism. Those parts of the Greek historical experience in which Greeks where victims is by no means a prominent enough part of their history that we would need to highlight it, and it alone among all other aspects of their history, in this overview. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the Greeks who where told to leave their homeland (Asia Minor) during the Pop transfer, who never saw their homes again, and those who died in Smyrna were what? Don't they represent who the Greeks are today? If those events didn't happen it's safe to say the history of the Greeks would be different, but saying that those events are not prominent to their history is like ignoring ones past. It happened and it deserves to be told. Go look at Athens, its population basically doubled overnight after the Pop transfer. Isn't that prominent enough for you? _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. Niko Silver 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say, but I have nothing to add to or subtract from what I said above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the undue part definitely holds water in your previous comment, especially with the vast history of the Greeks. How about we change section title or put these and other significant moments down below the "history" heading? Niko Silver 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I suggested in my frst comment. Remove the Persecution section and place the articles under the History section. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which others and how many others? Navboxes shouldn't get overloaded with content or they get useless and cumbersome. Also, please don't forget the part of my objections relating to the quality of these articles. They are not showcase articles, by any stretch of the imagination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So whatever doesn't look good we just sweep under the rug? Is that how it works? _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "doesn't look good", do you mean that the articles don't look good, or that the history treated in them doesn't look good? If the first, yes, certainly, they don't look good at all, and we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have. If the second, forget it, I don't "debate" on this level. -- In any case, articles are made accessible by linking to them from main articles, within the text, and by having them in categories. Cramming them into "navigation boxes" is not "not sweeping them under the rug", it's pushing them to the front. We have a couple hundred articles in Category:History of Greece and its subcats; every one of them might have equal claim to be linked to. Why push this group at the expense of others? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, by doesn't look good, I'm refering to your comment on the quality of the article. Just because it's a poor quality article doesn't mean it's any less important than any other article on the Greeks. And we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have is POV. We are not here to tell readers what to read. It's their choice, if they wish to read an article on the Pop exchange or the Smyrna fire then so be it. It is not our job as editors to hide them. They are placed in the infobox for ease and prominent relevance to the topic at hand. Even Niko agrees that A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. I'm certain if you go ask a group of Greeks you will find a bunch of them who originate from Asia Minor, are you going to tell them, that their history as Greeks (ie Smyrna, Pop Transfer) is not prominent to the rest of the Greeks? _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sorry, but you haven't addressed anything of what I wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, you just don't want to accept it, and have decided to ignore it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: slavika and arvantika

the template has slavika, aromanian, arvantika, meglenitic as "Languages and dialects" is this in reference to GREEKS (in general) , or in reference to the GREEK LANGUAGE???, because if it is in reference to the language than it is incorrect information. P m kocovski (talk)

Obviously the former. Notice the Turkic languages too. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the Greeks is Greek. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the language of Americans, Canadians and Australians is English, so there are no Americans, Canadians and Australians proper? What about the Mexicans or Argentinians who should be Spaniards? The Brazilians who should be Portuguese? There are people who self-identify as Greeks and speak other languages as well. Read the very sourced articles for each and every single one you deleted. Note, the template is titled Greeks, not Greek. Niko Silver 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain at the exaples from the template. The Aromanians, Arvanites, Karamanlides, Bulgarians/Slavo-Macedonians are NOT ethnic Greeks, but ethnic minorities who live in many countries while Greece is one of those countries. The languages spoken by those populations (Aromanian, Albanian, Turkish, Bulgarian/Slavo-Macedonian) are spoken ONLY by those minority populations, NOT by ethnic Greeks. --Olahus (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian language: Check Minorities in Greece#Aromanian-speaking, even the Greek president Karolos Papoulias, is of proud Aromanian descent!
Slavic dialects of Greece: Check Minorities in Greece#Christian Orthodox Slavophones and Slavophone Greeks. More than 80% of them (c.160,000!) self-identify as Greeks. (See Helsinki Monitor's numbers)
Arvanitika: Check both the language article and that of Arvanites themselves, and mind you don't call an Arvanite by that name because they really get wild!
Karamanlides: Turkish speaking Christians now mostly living and assimilated in Greece. Also check who is Constantine Karamanlis and Kostas Karamanlis, for example...
Urum language: Turkish speaking Greeks. Read the sourced intro.
Souliotes: Check their article please to see who they are, and what they sacrificed for the Greek cause.

Please keep in mind most articles above have at old times been a subject of extensive debate, and are sourced to exhaustion. Also, this template is NOT for "Ethnic" Greeks, as you call them, but for Greeks in general. Genetics is irrelevant from national consciousness and self-identification according to all scholars. Niko Silver 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I won't revert you, because I'm so sure of what I say that I'm certain that either you will do it yourself, or someone else will precede you. Whatever happens, I sincerely wish you the best! Niko Silver 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just presented examples of typical results of ethnic and inguistic assimilations. If you mean that the template is not about ethnic Greeks, then it should remaned into "Ethnic groups from Greece" and exclude the ethnic Greeks who live outside Greece (the Cypriots too!) and the section "languages and dialects" should be renamed into "languages and dialects spoken in Greece" and exclude the Greek dialects spoken outside Greece. --Olahus (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you, really. But if you yourself accept that they have been forcefully assimilated, or voluntarily assimilated as I might add, then you obviously mean that they are now Greeks... So why do you insist in removing them? Niko Silver 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter weather the assimilation took place by force or voluntary. It took place. And if he considers to be an ethnic Greek, then he is not an ethnic Aromanian anymore, not an ethnic Albanian anymore, not an ethnic Turk anymore, not an ethnic Bulgarian/Slavo-Macedonian anymore. And if he looses his mother tongue for Greek, he's mother tongue is the Greek language and not the Aromanian language, not the Albanian language, not the Turkish language, not the Bulgarian language. --Olahus (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You equate change of the mother tongue with change in national consciousness, while it is definitely not a prerequisite. Also, bilingualism seems to not play in your book eh? Here we list whichever language self-identifying Greeks might use or could have used in the past (in numbers, of course), and these languages are certainly not limited to Greek dialects. After all, what is a dialect? Aside from all that, templates are supposed to guide you to relevant content, and if you read any of the articles above Greeks are mentioned all over the place. Niko Silver 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a child of an immigrant family from China speaks mostly Greek does it mean now that the Chinese people are Greeks. Should we insert the Chinese people in this template too? And the chinese language too? Don't you understand that you are talking about assminilation? The bilingualism is a result of assimilation. What't about the Gipsies who live in Greece? Is the Romani language the language of the Greek people only because it is spoken in Greece too? Is it a dialect of the Greek language because some speakers of this language preffer to say that they are "Greeks"? Or are the Gipsies an ethnic subgroup of the Greeks? I think they are not. A person who is in process of assimilation shows a tendency to idetify with the assimilation ethnic goup and to speak the language of the assimilating group. The preocess of assimilation is completed when this person (or his successors) cease to identify with the initial ethnic group and cease to speak his mother tongue adopting exclusively the language spoken by the assimilating ethnic group.--Olahus (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data in the sources of the articles presented above shows you that there are/were significant numbers of self-identifying "Greeks" who spoke these languages. Your analysis is irrelevant and your example with the Gypsies (or the Chinese) is exactly the reason why the Gypsies were not included, unlike all others, who apart from speaking a different language along with Greek, they also self-identify as "Greeks". If one tells an Arvanite-speaker he is not Greek he'll most probably receive a punch in the face. The same for the 180,000 Slavic speakers of Greece who are more nationalist Greeks than Greeks "proper". The same for the Vlachs, who even request the Greek government to ban (!) their own language from Greek bilingual schools, and for who many scholars have gone as far as to suggest that they tend to self-identify as Greeks even outside Greece. Self-identification is the key, and certainly not perceived heritage and genetic origin, nor perceived correctness of their partial or complete or forceful or voluntary assimilation. And self-identifying "Greeks" do speak these languages, and in large numbers too. And that according to reliable sources in the said articles, which I doubt you even glanced. Your only problem is that you want to call these speakers something else from what they provenly call themselves, which is unacceptable. Niko Silver 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguments sustains exactly what I already wrote above. However, you can include those languages/peoples in the template too, but in a relevant context:

Greek diapora: the ethnic Greeks living outside Greece (Antiochians, Cypriots, Pontians etc)
Ethnic groups in Greece: the ethnic groups who live in Greece (Aromanians, Meglenoromanians, Arvanites/Albanians, Slavomacedonians/Bulgarians, Turks, etc)
Dialects of the Greek language: Calabrian Greek, Cappadocian Greek etc
Minority languages spoken in Greece: Aromanian, Meglenoromanian, Albanian, Bulgarian etc

Regards! --Olahus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they do not identify themselves as distinct ethnic groups. They define themselves as "Greeks" period, and they take offense if viewed as distinct, yet they do speak those languages. Read the articles please. Niko Silver 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the ethnographic and lingistic point of view they are different ethnicities. You cannot speak for an entire ethnic group and the ones who identifies as "Greeks" are already assimilated and therefore they're not Aromanians, Meglenoromanians, Arvanites/Albanians, Slavomacedonians/Bulgarians, Turks, Gipsies, Jews etc anymore. They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors. --Olahus (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! "They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors" as you say above, plus they do speak those languages on the side, and in great numbers too. I don't understand why we disagree when in fact we agree!?! Niko Silver 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus here it Olahus's views are respected and the product of his own research and opinions, but they are not applicable to this article. Please can we get back to the status quo ante. Thanks. Politis (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olahus, your arguments are not only specious, they're also extremely offensive to the hundreds of thousands of Greeks who are proud of their distinctive cultural and linguistic heritage. To say that they are not Arvanites or Vlachs "any more" is not only wrong, it is the height of arrogance. Who are you to tell them what they are and what they are not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wise to avoid jumping into "ancestry conclussions", by taking as a fact the language alone. "They are simply Greeks with non-greek ancestors": simply ignorant view, which equalizes language=ethnic origin. Under such pretexts, we could insert in a large number of articles views like: "tens of millions of people in Italy are simply Italians with Greek ancestors", the same for Turkey, Lebanon, and don't even get me started by elevating popular legends still alive among the Pakistani and Afghan populations, into scientific views... Instead of saying that the Aromanians/Arvanites/Karamanlides have no Greek ancestors (based on theis linguistic heritage), better question how many non-Greeks have indeed Greek ancestors... This map is just a hind (it is also somewhere in Wikipedia, but I cannot find it at the moment).

Regardless of all that, and back to the issue, since these languages and dialects are spoken by ethnic Greeks (no matter if they have non-Greeks ancestors, if they were hellenized or rehellenized, or were Greek-speaking turn to e.g. Slavic-speaking and then back to Greek- again, or of Greek ancestry that adopted a non-Greek language), they should remain in the template. And, by the way, the example of the Chinese above is irrelevant... This template includes languages and dialects spoken almost entirely by modern ethnic Greeks (the Aromanians in FYROM and Albania have traditionally self-identified as Greeks, the Karamanlides are Greek Orthodox Christians, with a history linked to Cappadocia at a time when becoming a Christian was punishable by death (Sharia law, active in the Ottoman Empire)-so, no chance they are of Turkish ancestry, the term "Arvanite" appears in history earlier than the term "Albanian"-so, it would make more sense to turn the ancestral lines vive versa... In any case, these languages and dialects are part of the Greeks and belong in this template (of course, the inclussionist policies of Wikipedia allow them to be added elsewhere too, and for that I can do nothing, even if I wanted to). Hectorian (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Allow me to 'evaluate' Olahus (with his kind permission) by quoting his first comment on this page. He wrote:"The language of the Greeks is Greek. --Olahus (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)". Everything else our dear friend wrote reads like catching up. Thanks. Politis (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politis, if you say that there is a concensus, show me please a link to it. However, read please this text:

Significant numbers of Greek citizens identify themselves as Turks, Pomaks, Vlachs, Roma, Arvanites (Orthodox Christians who speak a dialect of Albanian), or "Macedonians" or "Slavomacedonians." Most are integrated fully into society. The Government formally recognizes only the "Muslim minority" specified in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne (see Section 2.c.), although it stated publicly in 1999 that members of that minority could identify themselves individually as belonging to different ethnic groups. Most of the Muslim minority (officially estimated to number 98,000) are ethnically Turkish or Turcophone and live in Thrace. The Muslim minority also includes Pomaks and Roma. Many Greek Muslims, including Pomaks, identify themselves as Turks and say that the Muslim minority as a whole has a Turkish cultural consciousness. [ See the source ]. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Greece's Muslim minority has been analysed in depth many times. Frankly, I cannot see any relevance with the issue discussed here... Pomak language and Turkish are not in the template. I thought that the issue of your concern was the Aromanians, the Arvanites and the Karamanlides... But even if you want to put other groups on the table, I shall remind you that the origins of the Muslim minority ("ancestry", as you mentioned somewhere above) is rather obscure, and may be different than the origin of their language: 1. for the Turks, they are all Turks, even if they do not have Turkic characteristics or speak Turkish as a mother tangue, 2. for the Bulgarians, they are Slavs who were islamized, 3. for some Greek cyrcles, they are native Greek Orthodox Byzantines, who were linguistically slavicized and religiously islamized, 4. for some Westerners (in the scope and plan of further Balkanization, they are descendants of the ancient Thracians...

Take your pick, but be sure you can't have everyone agree with it... Hectorian (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cite from above: "the Aromanians in FYROM and Albania have traditionally self-identified as Greeks". I suggest you to read Thede Kahl's work Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. You will see clearly that the absolute majority of the Aromanians from FYROM and Albania have an own national identity. Most of them regard themselves neither as Greeks, nor as Romanians. They are Aromanians and this is enough. --Olahus (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My knowldge of German is practically non-existent... so, I cannot read your source, even if I wanted to... The self-identifications of the Aromanians of FYROM and Albania as Greeks is well attested in English. I challenge you to have a look at it (since you are obviously good in English). Hectorian (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you read Victor Roudometof's Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question, according to which "historically the majority of Vlachs in the southern Balkans have identified themselves as Greeks". The "absolute majority" of Aromanians in Greece's neighbouring countries may indeed regard themselves as a distinct ethnic group today, but not historically. One cannot disregard the fact that they were deliberately encouraged to abandon their traditional Greek (i.e. Roman) identity. In any case, this template pertains to those Aromanians who do identify as Greeks, and who – to use your words – constitute the absolute majority of the world's Aromanians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they would have historically a Greek identity, why do they have the endonym "Armanji", "Armin" and "Rramanji" ? They could define themselves in their language simply as "Gretslji" (the desigantion in Aromanian for the Greeks). And I don't see why the Aromanians of Macedonia and Albania should't have today an own identity. Who should be interested to encourage them deliberately to abandon their "traditional" Greek identity in tha favor of an own identity. The Romanian state would encourage to regard themselves as Romanians, not as an own ethnic group. And Albania/Jugoslavia didn't care about their Aromanians - they encouraged them maybe to regard themselves as "Albanians" or "Jugoslavs/"Macedonians"", but not to have their own identity. However, the talk about their historical identity is about the past. Only the majority of those who live in Greece have a Greek identity, but not those living outside this country. --Olahus (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the talk about their historical identity is about the past. Only the majority of those who live in Greece have a Greek identity, but not those living outside this country"

Correct to a degree, so why are you opposed to including them as a Greek sub-group when we are talking about Greece? Readers aren't idiots; they can tell the difference between the general and the specific (one hopes). 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that the Aromanians (generally), not the Aromanians from Greece consider to be Greeks. I think that an article Vlachs of Greece should be created to handle about the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians from Greece. --Olahus (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"why do they have the endonym "Armanji", "Armin" and "Rramanji" ?": it is like asking why the Greeks had (and still have) the endonym Romioi... Cause of history... check the respective articles for info and sources! I am an Aromanian myself, and trust me that many, too many, in the Blakans or not, would encourage the Aromanians to have an ethnic identity other than Greek... Issues having to do with the Cold war, the traditional 20th century animosity among Greece and e.g. Bulgaria, the titoist creation of the "Macedonian" nation and numerous other things in the past put the Vlachoi (Aromanians) into awkward possitions to abandon their Greek identity... Whatever your views may be, the fact remains that the main inspiration of the Greek War of Independence, Rigas Fereos, the first constitutional PM of Greece, Ioannis Kolettis, the current President of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, the most well known Greek folk musician, Vassilis Tsitsanis, as well as the vast majority of modern Aromanians self-identify as Greeks! So, let aside your personal views, for the template cannot be changed... Hectorian (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between the term "Romioi" and the Aromanians. The Aromians, as well as some other Romace peoples too (Romanians, Reto-Romanians), use an edonym that derived from the term "Romanus". The Greeks call the Aromanians "Βλάχοι", a term borrowed from the Slavic "Vlasi". Indeed, they are parts of Aromanians that have a Greek identity, but this issue is not older than the 18th century, when assimilation efforts were encouraged by the Greek missionary Cosmas of Aetolia (1714-1779) who taught that Aromanians should speak Greek because as he said "it's the language of our Church" and established over 100 Greek schools in northern and western Greece. (see Thede Kahl, Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. Münster, 1999). They are proeminent Aromanians in other European countries too, not just in Greece, see List of Aromanians.--Olahus (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that alters the fact that the Greek Aromanians are a subgroup of the Greeks. And claiming that there is "no connection" between the Romioi and the Aromanians is disgenuous; the latter were always part of the former. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about providing a source for your claim that the Greek Aromanians are Greeks? And how do you define the term "Greeks"? By ethnicity? By citizenship? However, there is no connection between the "Romioi" and the Aromanians. See Names of the Aromanians. --Olahus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their self-identification as ethnic Greeks is widely reported and more than adequately sourced. I didn't say that the name of the Aromanians derives from Romioi, despite the obvious etymological link; the Aromanians themselves were Romioi, which is why the Turks classified them as part of the millet-i Rûm. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this claim, the Romanians are Romioi too. --Olahus (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma

The Roma from Greece are in the same characteristics like other ethnic minorities in Greece (Aromanians, Albanians, Slavs): they have a Greek identity:

Read here: Many of the assimilated Roma, who have integrated into Greek society, consider themselves primarily Greek, and Roma only in the second place, and are therefore called "Greek Roma," distinguishing them from the marginalized "Roma of Greece."
Read here: Roma in Greece, as it is all over the world, have their internal, in lesser of bigger extent endogamy subdivisions, with the corresponding ethno cultural and dialectal characteristics. Such Roma groups in Greece are Gifti (Yifti), who are mainly Greek speaking; part of them is with preferred Greek identity [...]
Read here: Roma in Greece are not an homogeneous group either, and some of the Balkan families are also found in this country. There are three main communities: the Yifti, who speak Greek and many of them have Greek identity, the Türk-Yifti, who speak Turkish and often prefer a Turkish identity, and the various Romany speaking tribes, with Romany identity although considering themselves part of the Hellenic civilization and culture.
Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Roma of Greece do not have the same characteristics as other groups in Greece. And, by the way, the Aromanians, Arvanites and Slavophones are not considered ethnic minorities, neither by themselves nor by the rest of the Greeks (an ethnic distinction is made in other, non-Greek minds). Firstly, the Roma acknoewledge their non-Greek origins. On the contrary, the Aromanians, etc believe they have Greek ancestry. Secondly, the Roma are viewd as non-Greeks by the Greeks. In the sense that they are Greek citizens with full rights, yet citizenship does not mean ethnos, at least not in Greece... On the contrary, Aromanians, Arvanites, etc, are considered as such ethnic Greek subgroups as Cretans, Tsakonians, Sarakatsans, Cypriots, etc. Thirdly, historically speaking, the Roma were not viewed as ethnic Greeks, neither by themselves, nor the Greeks, nor the foreigners. The Souliotes were considered Greeks by their contemporary Westerners. The Aromanians in 18th-19th century Vienna, were considered Greeks, by the Austro-Hungarian authorities (Tositsas) or in Egypt (e.g. George Averoff. Lastly, as an example, the current President of Greece, Karolos Papoulias, is Aromanian. According to the Greek constitution, the president of the country must be ethnic Greek, Greek Orthodox. If the Aromanians did not consider themselves ethnic Greeks and/or were not considered as such by the rest of the Greeks, it would have become a major issue here. Apropos, the last attempt to draw an ethnic distinction concerning the Aromanians, blatantly failed... This might say something to anyone imagining similar plans and schemes... Hectorian (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak arguments, Hectorian. They are Aromanians who regard themselves as an own ethnic group as well as Slaves, Roma, Arvanites etc do. And on the other side they are Aromanians who regard themselves as Greeks, same in the case of the Slaves, Roma, Arvanites etc. If you insist to add all these groups, then you must accept the Roma too. I hope you're not an antiziganist.

PS: Concerning the origins of the Aromanians there enough to read here. Don't forget that on this issue, there are different vievs between the Aromanians and between the scientists too. And we are talking here about the Roma, not the Aromanians. --Olahus (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about the Roma here, with the Aromanians in the back of our heads, isn't it true Olahus? Of course I am not an antiziganist, nor do I have anything against the Roma people. Yet, the real issue here are all the minorities of Greece, with your special interest about the Aromanians. I, myself, am an Aromanian, and I am sure that I do not think differently than the rest Aromanians of Greece. If you wanna have it your way in the template, all I can say is mare lucru... Practically, you won't achive anything nor will you contribute significantly in any truth for the matter. Hectorian (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hectorian, you're obvoiusly an antiziganist and your last revert is called in Wikipedia a disruptive edit. I gave you as a more detailed example the situation of the Aromanians because I have more knowledges about the Aromanians then about the Arvanites, Slavophones etc. from a simple reson: my wife is Aromanian. However, the fact that my wife is Aromanian or that you are an Aromanian is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. You must give sources for your claim. You can't fool me, Hectorian. They are also Aromanians in Greece who think different then you want to put it across. Of course, it is also true for Arvanites and Slavophones. From the same reason you insist to include those peoples, you must accept the Roma too (moreover because they are sources, as you saw above, that clearly puts the Roma in the same category). Or, do you feel ashamed about the Roma? --Olahus (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny comment, with a much advertised example of a single person. You wanna have it your way? Go ahead... Afterall, it has been evident that cause of these policies of Wikipedia, people tend not to take it seriously anymore... That's why my edits are rather scarce for a long time. Thus, Wikipedia now has become the playground of people like yourself... Enjoy! Hectorian (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you still don't have any logical argument, right?--Olahus (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Roma in Greece do not identify as and are not considered to be ethnic Greeks (Έλληνες το γένος). That is the difference. I propose removing the Romaniotes on similar grounds, though I admit to lacking expert knowledge on their precise ethnic self-identification. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true. I prooved the contrary with the sources at the beginning of the discussion. --Olahus (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But to what extent do those who have been assimilated retain an identity qua Roma? The Arvanites and Vlachs retain a strong identity as Arvanites and Vlachs and Greeks. Abandoning their culture is not a requirement of being or feeling Greek, as it seems to be for the Roma. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between the Greek identity of the Aromanians/Arvanites/Slaves and the Greek identity of the Roma. If you think they are, show me a source rather than an original research.--Olahus (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

republic of macedonia

just a question why does this article still have the acronym FYROM as opposed to Republic of Macedonia? most other sources on wikipedia link to ROM not to FYROMP m kocovski (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it.Xenovatis (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that in Greece related articles we didn't have to use the name "Republic of Macedonia". I'm not sure though.. - Sthenel (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, it clearly distinguishes from the Greek region of Macedonia. Plus most other templates have moved onto Republic of Macedonia. P m kocovski (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on WP:MOMAC "The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated,[2] or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia." seeing as it is a template the Xenovatis version should be reinstated.P m kocovski (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites are not ethnic Greeks

It is extremely odd to place the Arvanites at the category of ethnic Greek people since the Arvanites have a language and an ethnic background different from the Greeks. No serious research can confirm the statement of this template. This type of exaggerations is clearly Greek propaganda that should be battled firmly by serious Wikipedia contributors. Let me inform that the article Arvanites is currently hijacked by Greek nationalist users. --Albanau (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

albania

ok, just realized that contrary to my edit-comment there is actually a grouping for norther eprirotes. however i still think somehow albania (and possibly turkey) should feature up there with greece and cyprus. in fact, either those three or four countries; or just greece alone. am not sure why those two countries only are chosen?Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical subgroups...why?

Does this template need dozens of local subgroups which actually lead to articles about regions? This is a template about the Greeks and their subgroups, if a distinct subgroup within the Greek nation exists. Roumeliotes, Thracians, some selected (how?) islanders etc with no respective articles and any distinct identity, are just separated by region making it look like a geographical template. I think this is totally needless. 94.65.54.117 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians

Khirurg, I would appreciate it if you desisted in trying to include the Aromanians in an ethnic Greek template. The Aromanians are not ethnic Greeks. Period. Aromanian is also not a language spoken by ethnic Greeks. Their high degree of cultural assimilation has not made reliable sources classify the Aromanians within Greek subgroups. Super Ψ Dro 10:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate it if you stopped your endless nationalist POV tinkering in all these articles. Like it or not, the Aromanians in Greece have assimilated into the Greek nation, and are now part of it. That's it, there's no turning back the clock. You can't undo that, no matter how hard you try here on Wikipedia. It's over, accept it and move on. And don't bother edit-warring, you are just wasting everyone's time. Khirurg (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Should the Aromanians be included in this template? Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So this template is a sidebar on the Greek ethnicity. Greece is a multiethnic country, with several minorities other than ethnic Greeks. Examples include the Aromanians and the Megleno-Romanians (both commonly known in Greece as Vlachs). Here we ought not to confuse terms, as ethnicity (per the Wikipedia article's description, a group of people identifying with each other) is not identical to nation (per the Wikipedia article's description, the collective identity a[n ethnic] group has). An ethnic Aromanian can be part of the Greek nation by virtue of identifying with it, but it also can be part of the Cambodian one this way. Nations do not have much relevance on Wikipedia articles; most of our pages on "peoples" so to call them focus on the ethnic aspect. See countless examples such as Greeks, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Albanians, Turkish people, Latvians, Vietnamese people; all have "ethnic group" at their leads, all have ethnicity-focused categories, and in the articles of their nation states, we often find lists of "ethnic groups", not of "nations" (and there's also this template worth linking, Template:Ethnic groups in Greece, including the Aromanians, even though supposedly according to this template the Aromanians are just ethnic Greeks).

Now, the Greeks article also includes "nation" in the lead, but this is pretty much just decoration. There is no "nation" categories in the article. In addition, nowhere else other than in this template in the whole of Wikipedia is the Aromanian ethnic minority of Greece included as part of the Greek ethnicity. The Aromanians are a Romance stateless scattered ethnic group in the Balkans, and they have adopted lots of identities as they live in many countries none of which is their own, mainly Greek and Romanian but also Albanian, Bulgarian or even Italian (in history). Still, the Aromanians are not included in the sidebars Template:Romanians, Template:Albanians or Template:Bulgarians (nor in the sidebar templates of ethnicities with other states the Aromanians live in: Template:Macedonians (ethnic group) and Template:Serbs); notice as well that a grand total of zero of these templates include ethnic minorities within the titular state of these ethnicities.

So we have two issues with this case:

1. This template does not follow common practice in Wikipedia regarding the inclusion of a country's ethnic minorities into the titular ethnicity of said country's template.

2. Aromanians, despite having lots of other identities attached to various ethnic groups, are only included in the template of this ethnic group.

Common practice is broken, and there is no good reasoning or justification for this. So the Aromanians and their language must be removed from this ethnic Greek template. I will also bring into attention the situation of Slavic speakers within this template, as obviously Slavs are not Greeks, but it is not the focus of this RfC. Super Ψ Dro 17:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Khirurg, hope you enjoy wasting more time in a pointless discussion we both know the outcome of. I have not so far. Super Ψ Dro 17:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal First, the OPs contention that this template is exclusively about "ethnic Greeks" is nothing more than the OP's own opinion, with nothing to substantiate that. I can just as easily argue that it is for the Greek nation as a whole and not exclusively ethnic Greeks. Now, the Aromanians/Vlachs in Greece are nowadays completely assimilated into the Greek nation, something which is very easily sourced (most Aromanians being fully assimilated into the Greek nation. Not only that, but many scholars are of the opinion that they have a Greek origin [1]. Now, the rest of the OP's post is a bunch of WP:OR definitions of "ethnicity" and "nation" that he made up himself, but even by the OP's own definition of "ethnicity" (a group of people identifying with each other), here is the leading association of the Aromanians/Vlachs of Greece stating that In August 2003 the Greek Federation of Cultural Associations of Vlachs objected to the direct or indirect characterization of the Vlach-speaking Greeks as an ethnic, linguistic or other type of minority, a position expressed in a subsequent report issued by the American organization Freedom House. The Federation asserted that Vlach-speaking Greeks never asked to be recognized as a minority by the Greek state as both historically and culturally they were, and still are an integral part of Hellenism. [2]. In other words, the Aromanians/Vlachs of Greece identify with other Greeks, thus meeting the definition of being part of the OP's own definition of ethnicity as a group of people identifying with each other (talk about an own goal). So contra point 1 of the OP, the Aromanians/Vlachs of Greece do not consider themselves a minority and consider themselves an integral part of the Greek people. Obviously, they would very much want to be included in this template and would be offended not to be. Regarding point #2, that can be easily remedied by adding the Aromanians to other templates, it's not a reason to remove them from here. Super Dromaeosaurus, next time do your homework before wasting everyone's time with "a pointless discussion we both know the outcome of". Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the OPs contention that this template is exclusively about "ethnic Greeks" is nothing more than the OP's own opinion, with nothing to substantiate that. have you looked at the categories on this template? Though still, all of these kinds of templates are ethnicity-focused. Common practice must be followed.

There is a very important difference between "complete assimilation" and "most are assimilated". Even today, we find groups of Aromanians in Greece that maintain their their Aromanian identity. Expert Thede Kahl mentions they live mostly in and around Grevena, in Veria (natives) and around Athens (migrants) ([3], p. 152). There also are pro-Romanian Aromanians, mostly in the areas of Avdella, Perivoli, Samarina, Vovousa, Krania, Edessa and Veria (p. 154). Though Aromanian identity in Greece is more complicated than you seem to think, take a look at the last paragraph at page 8 here, many identify as "Hellenes" but not as "Greeks" (While almost every Aromanian considers himself to be Hellene (Ellinas, fem. Ellinida, pl. Ellines) when speaking Greek, he would not consider himself Greek (Grecu, fem. Greacā, pl. Greț) when speaking Aromanian., To be a Hellene does not mean automatically to be Greek., From the perspective of the Greek Aromanians all monolingual populations which only speak Greek belong to the Greeks (Greț), while the Vlach-, Slav- and Albanian-speaking people can also belong to the Hellenes (Elini, in Greek Ellines)). So not only aren't all Aromanians in Greece assimilated, but those that supposedly are reject this simple "Greek" label. When it is said that most Aromanians in Greece identify with Greece, it doesn't mean they have completely forgotten their language, culture, ethnic self-awareness, no not at all. Kahl anyway argues that most Aromanians are kind of just apathetic to this whole issue (p. 154). I will also remind the case of Sotiris Bletsas, from 2001.

Not only that, but many scholars are of the opinion that they have a Greek origin and many other scholars are of the opinion that they are not. This is an unproductive argument and there's no point on elaborating on it.

Now, the rest of the OP's post is a bunch of WP:OR definitions of "ethnicity" and "nation" that he made up himself no, what I did was use the definitions for these terms that the website we are in uses. In other words, the Aromanians/Vlachs of Greece identify with other Greeks, thus meeting the definition of being part of the OP's own definition of ethnicity as a group of people identifying with each other nope again. This is the whole definition given by Wikipedia on ethnicity: An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. Remind me when Greeks start speaking Aromanian.

So contra point 1 of the OP, the Aromanians/Vlachs of Greece do not consider themselves a minority and consider themselves an integral part of the Greek people. I've given evidence above that there are several different standing points within the Aromanian minority in Greece. Proof will be needed to prove what you've said. Obviously, they would very much want to be included in this template and would be offended not to be. Depends. If we're to include them as nothing but simple ethnic Greeks, just as any other Greek from Athens, Thessaloniki, etc., they might not agree.

Regarding point #2, that can be easily remedied by adding the Aromanians to other templates, it's not a reason to remove them from here. and why should we? Ethnically, Aromanians are not Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Romanians or Serbs. Nor Greeks. If we included them all into other ethnicities' templates, where exactly are the ethnic Aromanians left? This also creates such an obvious problematic precedent. If we start overlapping ethnicity around, do we start including articles like Greeks in Germany at Template:Germans?

But how about we forget all these debates on ethnicity and identity that do not belong here, and focus on why should this template provoke inconsistency in this website? Why should this template be the only one of an ethnic group to include other ethnicities? Why should the Aromanians in Greece be the only Aromanians included in other ethnicity's template, or why should the Aromanians in general be the only ethnicity in Wikipedia to be included around in other ethnicities' templates? What causes the need for an exception here? Maybe it is simpler and easier to stick to the common long-standing practice, which must exist for a reason. So, do not include other ethnicities into pages they're not related to, and do not artificially apply different procedures for a compact ethnicity. Super Ψ Dro 19:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you got nothing but WP:OR ("When it is said that most Aromanians in Greece identify with Greece, it doesn't mean they have completely forgotten their language, culture, ethnic self-awareness, no not at all."). You are just making up an arbitrarily narrow category of what "Greek" that suits you and making stuff up out of thin air. It's not "most are assimilated", it's "fully/almost fully", "completely/almost completely" and "totally/almost totally" assimilated. Even the source you provided (the only one) states While almost every Aromanian considers himself to be a Hellene. And every single Aromanian in Greece speaks Greek, whereas Aromanian itself is dying, if not dead already (can you even find a current source on the number of speakers?). So not only do we have multiple sources that state they are fully or almost fully assimilated, they themselves consider themselves an integral part of Hellenism. They have stated so themselves, and they definitely belong in the template. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? So not only do we have multiple sources that state they are fully or almost fully assimilated no, you have given none. if not dead already ??? can you even find a current source on the number of speakers? 50,000 (T. Salminen, 1993. Unesco Red Book Report on Endangered Languages) or 100,000 (Kahl, 2002) or 200,000 (Ntasiou, 2017). Speakers by the way not ethnic Aromanians, since Kahl on the same paper estimates there are 300,000 Aromanians in Greece while the Council of Europe gives a figure of 250,000. You are just making up an arbitrarily narrow category of what "Greek" that suits you you mean the definition of ethnicity this website uses that I literally just copied and that is applied in the rest of similar templates? Even the source you provided (the only one) what? they themselves consider themselves an integral part of Hellenism. you decided to only include the part of the quote that you liked? They have stated so themselves you really did not read page 8 of the source I cited. If you did, you'd find a noteworthy quote.

If you don't have anything of actual value to add to this debate anymore and are here just to play around with my words, please do not reply to this comment. It unnecessarily delays the inevitable outcome we both are aware of. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that "plays with words" is you, what with your entirely made up definition of "ethnicity", and with how I showed you a source that states the Aromanians in Greece are fully assimilated, yet you spun that as there is a very important difference between "complete assimilation" and "most are assimilated", and on and on. I even showed you a source that attested that the Vlachs/Aromanians consider themselves an integral part of Hellenism. But it's very easy to find sources that the Vlachs/Aromanians are assimilated and consider themselves Greek. I'll let them do the talking. What's funny is that a former Romanian president tried to pull the same thing you are trying to pull here, and was told off pretty strongly by the Vlachs of Greece [4]. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown me a source saying all Aromanians in Greece are fully assimilated, because that's a lie.

I also have shown you a source saying how Hellenism ≠ being Greek. To demonstrate this fact, let me quote Maria K. from Kleisoura. "Of course I am proud to be Vlach, but I am much prouder to be Hellene" were her first comments when speaking about the Vlachs in Greece. Only a few minutes later, when we switched over to Aromanian, she told me about her daughter "You can´t imagine my shock when our daughter wanted to marry a Greek! Who wants to marry their own children to the Greeks?". To be a Hellene does not mean automatically to be Greek. Further problems are provoked if a language is used that does not differentiate between Greek and Hellene. Aromanians in Greece do not simply refer to themselves as Greeks and to show this is an oversimplification of the issue. Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Because that's a lie". WP:TRUTH much? There are half a dozen sources (and could easily come up with just as many, in fact I think I will) that back including Aromanians of Greece in the template. There is no requirement that all Aromanians in Greece are fully assimilated for inclusion. You are moving the goal posts and artificially creating unreasonable standards because this is not going your way. The Aromanians are sufficiently assimilated that inclusion is easily warranted. As for "Hellenism ≠ being Greek", that's just funny. A quote from some villager? Really? That's your "source? "Hey here's some random villager that says Hellenes aren't Greek". You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't expect to be taken seriously around here if you quote stuff like that. WP:CIR after all. Khirurg (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...now I am the one talking about whether all Aromanians are fully assimilated or not? I will remind you a quote from your first comment: Now, the Aromanians/Vlachs in Greece are nowadays completely assimilated into the Greek nation. I haven't created any "goal post", this is what you've talking about all the time.

And I really don't care if you dislike the sources I give you. Here are more sources supporting Kahl: Although Greek Aromanians would differentiate themselves from “Grecο” (Aromanian name for Greek-speaking people) most still consider themselves part of the broader Greek nation. [5] (p. 71); Obviously "Grets" did not work for him, because in the Vlach language there is a distinction between Vlachs (Armeni) and Greeks (Greek-speaking, Grets) [6] (recommend reading the rest of the page); Tu Grătsie multsa armânj s-luyursescu elini (nu grets). ("In Greece many Aromanians consider themselves Hellenes (not Greeks)", [7] p. 53, Aromanian publication); multsâ Armânj ditu Gratsie s-luyursescu ti „elini"; „elinu" nu easti idyiul lucru cu „grecu" ("Many Aromanians in Greece consider themselves "Hellenes"; "Hellene" is not the same thing as "Greek"", [8], p. 23, another Aromanian publication). It is a fact that these supposedly assimilated Aromanians distinguish between people who only speak Greek in Greece and those who speak their own minority languages. Why should we not make a distinction here?

And show some modesty. If I really had no idea what I am talking about I wouldn't be showing someone a language is not dead but actually spoken by thousands of people in their own country. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that back the inclusion of the Aromanians of Greece in Template:Greeks

1.Vlachs are sometimes assumed to be the Romanized descendants of autochthonous ethnic groups, the Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians and Greeks, though the Greek connection is undoubtedly the strongest. in Vlachs, A Peaceful Balkan People. David Binder. Mediterranean Quarterly, Duke University Press.Volume 15, Number 4, Fall 2004.
2. The Federation asserted that Vlach-speaking Greeks never asked to be recognized as a minority by the Greek state as both historically and culturally they were, and still are an integral part of Hellenism. in Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Greece : Vlachs, May 2018.
3. most Aromanians being fully assimilated into the Greek nation in Local Dimensions of the Second World War in Southeastern Europe. (2019). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
4. the high level of assimilation of the Aromanians by Greek speaking populations in The Romance Balkans: Collection of Papers Presented at the International Conference The Romance Balkans, 4-6 November 2006. (2008). Serbia: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies.
5. Today large Aromanian groups identify with the Greek nation and culture in Ethnologia Balkanica. (n.d.). (n.p.): Waxmann Verlag.
6. Vlach populations of Greece are well integrated into the Greek national project...Most of their representatives and formal organizations actively deny claims that Aromanian Vlachs constitute a national minroity. in Uneven Citizenship: Minorities and Migrants in the Post-Yugoslav Space. (2017). (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.

In other words, the literature backs the fact that the Aromanians have every reason to be included in the template. Khirurg (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since you want to play with the pointless origin debates, here you go some info from Aromanians#Origin: Many Romanian scholars maintain that the Aromanians were part of a Daco-Romanian migration from the north of the Danube between the 6th and 10th centuries, supporting the theory that the 'Great Romanian' population descend from the ancient Dacians and Romans. So who's right here? There is no evidence for either theory, and Winnifrith deems them improbable. The little evidence that exists points that the Vlach (Aromanian) homeland was in the Northern Balkans, North of the Jireček Line demarcating the Latin and Greek linguistic influence spheres. Their origin is disputed. It cannot be proven that the Aromanians are of Greek origin, and it cannot be proven that the Aromanians originate from the north either. I could also bring some sources to try and prove how they're actually Romanians, but this is worthless for this argument.

Romanian scholars have a clear bias on this topic. They make all kinds of wild claims. Bottom line is, there are non-Balkan scholars that support a connection with other Greeks, and there's nothing you can do about that. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What little evidence there is shows that the original home of the Vlachs was the Northern Balkans., but when the Danube frontier broke at the beginning of the seventh century Latin speakers would be pushed or push with the invading Slavs further to the South. (Winnifrith in Clogg, 2002, p. 115) Again, who is right? Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Said by an organization which while encompasses a big number of Aromanian associations, has no official or authoritative status.

no authoritative status. Nah, just the usual word games because WP:JDL. What's an organization with "authoritative status"? What nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that this organization is not aligned with any government nor academia. Their words are as valuable as any other random Aromanian organization, except by virtue of encompassing a large number of associations. I am only trying to avoid you using again the sources you find as evidence of this representing the absolute Aromanian population in Greece. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3., 4., 5., 6. most Aromanians, the high level, Today large Aromanian groups, Most of their representatives and formal organizations. Nothing about a 100% assimilation of 100% of Aromanians.

There is no requirement for "100% assimilation of 100% of Aromanians". A ridiculous, unreasonable requirement no on can take seriously. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement. It's your own claim. Don't try to turn it around against me. Though I will agree on that it is "ridiculous" and "unreasonable". Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already cited sources saying how there remain Aromanian-only or pro-Romanian Aromanians in Greece. I can also provide examples of associations who would support the notion of Aromanians as a minority within Greece, or which promote the supposedly assimilated Aromanian language and culture. See this [9], the infamous Bletsas, member of the Society for Aromanian Culture, promoting Aromanian as a minority language in Greece (and being prosecuted over it). See also the Society of Aromanians of Athens [10], which is an Aromanian association based in Athens that promotes the revitalization of both Aromanian language and culture., seeks, to set new, but solid, foundations to teach this endangered language, redefining Aromanian identity and which organises an academic conference on Aromanian identity,culture and language. So much for this supposed full complete and absolute assimilation of all Aromanians!

You haven't cited jack. The link to that association you posted doesn't show that they do not consider themselves part of the Greek nation. You got nothing. There is no requirement forfull complete and absolute assimilation of all Aromanians! to be included in the template. You don't make the rules. Khirurg (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not my requirement, it is your own words, which I was refuting. You've claimed that all Aromanians are assimilated and that have even forgotten their language, but I've shown you the existence of organizations in Greece pushing for Aromanian identity and studying the Aromanian language. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Aromanians in Greece have abandoned their Aromanian identity in favor of a Greek one, and those who supposedly do, reject simply being labelled as Greeks but only as Hellenes in a broad context. To argue that all Aromanians in Greece simply identify as just another Greek is deceptive and I will ask you to desist from this standing point and look for another argument to support inclusion.

Again with the artifically high and unreasonable requirements. Don't expect anyone to take this seriously. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider following what sources say artificial and unreasonable, I do not have the problem here. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the situation of the Aromanians in Greece is not black and white, I propose we find a middle ground. The chances of achieving a satisfactory result for both sides in this RfC increases this way. We could include another section in the groups part titled for example "Groups with a largely Greek identity". We can achieve a better title through discussion. But the point would be adding a section fitting a broader definition of "Greek", because this is what most Aromanians identify with. Putting them alongside Greek Macedonians or Cypriots does not accurately portray reality. Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to compromise and would be open to some amended wording, for example "Aromanians (Greece)", or something to denote that the vast majority of Aromanians in Greece (but not every single Aromanian everywhere, obviously) identify as Greek, but I don't agree with a separate section. Khirurg (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what I will ask for the Aromanians to be removed from this "Northern Greeks" section. Even if it was intentioned to be geographic, this label can give the impression that Greeks are divided into ethnic subgroups and that the Aromanians are also part of this subgroup. And still, most Aromanians in Greece consider themselves Greeks only within a broader definition, they differentiate themselves from the simple Greeks. I see no reason why not reflecting this on the template. I wonder if within this "broad" section could other peoples like the Arvanites or the Slavs be included. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello everyone. I think that the Aromanians are an ethnolinguistic community in their own right. Those of them who have assimilated into Greek society have lost their distinct characteristics, but there are certainly those who identify as a minority community. So the issue is complex. Jingiby (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose removal I think there's a confusion between ethnic groups and language. That fact that 19th century Western European nationalism tried to tie these concepts doesn't mean that this is is the modern definition. In fact, "ethno-linguistic" is now generally considered to only be one of many types of ethnic groups. When it comes to culture and, more importantly, ethnic identity, the vast majority of Aromanians are ethnic Greeks. This isn't the result of assimilation. Since the idea of ethnic groups took hold in the Balkans in the 19th century, most Aromanians have identified as Greeks (before that both identifying as Romans based almost solely on religion). As a result of assimilation, that majority now also speaks Greek almost exclusively, but before that they used Greek for religious purposes, similarly to Levantine Greeks (who I notice are also not included in the infobox for some reason).

The only reason for the "weak" part is that there is now a minority of non-Greek Aromanians mainly living in other countries (though many Aromanians in North Macedonia and especially Albania still identify as Greeks). I however think that inclusion in an infobox doesn't need to be exclusive. Since there is a significant overlap, even if it isn't necessarily total, it can be included. --Antondimak (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groups by region

I want to apologize for forgetting to respond in time to the discussion when I was tagged at Khirurg's talkpage. I postponed it due to being a little busy and then I just forgot it completely. I had it in the back of my head that I should at some point respond in the following days, though SuperDromosaerus, seeing no reaction, proceeded to the edit, and very justifiably so.

Indeed, the previous layout of that section wasn't ideal, rather it was a bit confusing, and Dromosaerus was correct to point it out. Now as I had mentioned in my initial comment, I personally lean towards a neutral title, as it is expected in those templates, the purpose of which is to merely function as a collection of existing articles. Titles, such as 'assimilated Greeks' etc, appear largely wp:undue for a template heading, as they seem to overhighlight one specific characteristic of these groups, and nearly attach to them a sense of 'not (fully) belonging', which for the most part does not accurately reflect the perception from others and the self-perception and identity of these groups as a part of the whole either. The overly simplistic nature of templates and infoboxes does not allow for all the nuance to be fully represented and can end up giving a piece of information that is deficient or to a certain extend misrepresentative. The undue nature of the title is also evident, as the same approach could theoretically be applied to all nations; so why emphasize it only here. All nations are built by various peoples interracting and merging to form a greater whole. This is a natural process that never exactly stops, but slowly continues, to a certain extend at least, as long as people are alive. There is no such thing as a "clean" nation that has not had parts of themselves assimilate to other groups, and parts of others assimilate to them. As it was initially mentioned at the talkpage, this discussion aimed to reach some consensus, so I hope this can be understood. As far as I'm concerned, I certainly think that the current groupings are still an improvement, compared to the previous ones. Piccco (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with this. I thought this had already been resolved but have just seen that it turns it has been changed again. I argued in Khirurg's talk page why I believed these groups were more distinct from other subgroups in this template, and that this distinctness warranted them being grouped together into their own section. "Assimilated Greeks" (or "Assimilated groups" as I proposed) explains briefly why are precisely these groups put together in their own section. "Other groups" does not explain anything, as it is vague. The previous version did not overhighlight one specific characteristic of these groups, their main characteristics set them out from many of the other groups here, which is why they were given their own section. Yes, the main charcteristic of Arvanites, Aromanians or Slavophones is that they speak a different language, and have their own cultural features that are more unique than those of other groups in this template; their increased distinctiveness is being used to classify all of them into one single section, and ideally the reasoning behind this would be described by the section's header. To note that these are assimilated groups is very much not misrepresentative, all of these groups fit the definition at the first sentence at Cultural assimilation. I am not opposed to change it if there's another appropriate way of naming this header, as I had previously proposed "groups of non-Greek origin", but I don't really think there are many alternatives.

Piccco, I'd rather have the previous version be restored. Super Ψ Dro 11:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dromosaerus, as I wrote above, though I had forgotten to respond in Khirurg's talkpage, my opinion about the proposal hadn't really changed. I agree that your proposed reorganizing was an improvement and I also don't have any issues with the separation of these groups, as you did. The articles of these groups provide unambiguously and clearly all the necessary information about them, but this header just comes off as a bit undue without any more context. A simple npov title fits better in a template like this one. Piccco (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering whether the group of Megleno-Romanians is particularly suitable for this template, because this one until recently wasn't present. Piccco (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to clarify a little more what I meant above, so that I know that it was as clear as possible. It's not that I disagree with what you stated above, nor are you wrong in anything that you said about the cultural assimilation process. What I meant by "overhighlighting one specific characteristic of these groups" (referring to their cultural assimilation) is that this ignores other factors, such as their self-perception and identification. Many of these groups, including the Vlachs/Aromanians (which understandably is your main interest) identified as Greeks by the 19th century, even before their cultural assimilation had been complete, and already by the establishment of the Greek state did not perceive themselves as any type of minority, nor as belonging to another Balkan nation. User:Antondimac made a similar comment above about the distinction between one's cultural identity and ethnic identification. Some of the most notable Greek nationalists and benefactors of the 19th century, and even 18th century, for example, were Aromanians. As I said above, the overly simplistic nature of wikipedia infoboxes and templates that collect and present articles, like this one, do not allow for any of this nuance to be fully represented and explained, as it can happen in the main article, making a header like this undue for lacking significant context. The same thing applies to modern representatives of these groups, to whom the ultimate origin of the groups several centuries ago is largely not relevant today and does not define and shape their modern identification. As I said, that is not to say that I disagree with anything you mentioned above about these groups; the objection here concerns exclusively the title choice in this specific template only. The very fact that these groups are separated from the rest into a different group within the template already points to some distinction, which is then unambiguously stated in their respective main articles. Piccco (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]