This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Khirurg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Yannismarou14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our sidebar points to most of the useful pages within the project.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There is already one task force, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
Ancient Greece
Yia sou, Tsourkpk. I've seen your comment on Talk:Ancient Greece and I agree (as you can see from my comment right above yours). The topic is too important to be left in this state. I didn't know what you say about schoolkids being encouraged to edit, but the daily experience of watching this article strongly suggests you are right. Alas, I am not a professional classicist, are you? Also, I think that the article is a task that might require some time, some discussion, and a team of authors who are willing and able to contribute. They'd have to agree on a series of sections, prepare them on their own sandboxes (with references), and then overhaul the article in one go, and watch it ever after... Should it be, in your opinion, a long essay on Ancient Greek civilisation as a whole, or perhaps a series of shorter introductions, linking to the more detailed wikipedia articles on the relevant topics? Is there anyone else out there who feels this needs attention? athinaios (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pelasgians
Just so you know Tsourkpk, Dbachmann has reviewed the paragraph supporting the Albanian-Pelasgian connection and has decided to remove the majority of its content (except for one sentence that is actually relevant to the Pelasgians article). Anyway, if you want to contribute to the discussion, then by all means participate. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks. Deucalionite (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Pelasgians (again)
Just so you know Tsourkpk, I tried to convince Dbachmann to fix the "paragraph" supporting the so-called Albanian-Pelasgian connection. Unfortunately, I did not get a response from him. I think that you (or even Megistias) should do the honors of following through with Dbachmann's critical review. This issue has to come to a close. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks. Deucalionite (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hello and sorry to annoy you.Your frontpage says you are interested in maps.I uploaded this after hard work with many books Ancient Epirusbut i cant understand how to place it in Epirus and Epirus-related subjects like personalities and the such.Could you help?Also check the talk page it has for explanation in several questions regarding specific tribes. Megistias (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
illyrian tribesHello what do you think of this one? Ok i found out how.Megistias14:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a misnaming of the albanian language based in geography and historical anachronism.Albanians appear at 1000 Ad.Megistias (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Saranda
Hi! You reverted my amends saying they were "unexplained mass deletions". They were not. I was merely rearranging the information into topic headings, subed into native English and add a link to Ksamil. You may care to restore my amends. No offence intended, but a brief read would have made this clear. I certainly don't wish to start a content fight; my intention was to improve the content. Folks at 137 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
White space
There are 2 ways that I know of to minimise white space. Normally, the table of contents (toc) will generate space, as it did in the Saranda article, but if one uses {{tocleft}} or {{tocright}} it forces the toc to the left or right and text can fill the space. Use of boxes can also generate white space and one can reduce it by use of {{clear}}. Not sure how it's used, try some experiments, there's an example at D class cruiser which might help. Good luck, mate. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The truth will come out one day. For me Wikipedia has become nothing more than your propaganda. You can't give any valid arguments if something is wrong in the quoted tekst from illyrians.org. You are a sad example of someone that can't win an argument with facts. You accuse the site illyrians.org of being ultra-nationalistic. The same can be said of all the contributrions you made to wikipedia. I demand arbitrage by non-greek people. Probably you are to affraid for that and you will delete this again WikiBakel (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If I were to erase the insulting comment you wrote above, I would actually be doing you a favor, since insulting me in the manner you did only makes YOU look bad. Now, you can "sanitize" your own talk page all you want [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], but know that every insult, every derogatory comment, every slur and every rant you post on MY page will be available for everyone to see for all eternity. As for your site illyrians.org, it is indeed nothing more than a fringe-lunatic crackpot nationalist website, so please familarize yourself with WP:RS and stop wasting everyone's time. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Like you, I am unenthused about having Turkish names in the lead sentence for most Greek places. However, I am not so sure about omiting them in the "history" section. It was part of their history to be called something else. I hope this can be recognized. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose including the Ottoman Turkish name for some places in the history section is fine with me. However, I still think that should be the case only in places where the Ottoman presence was significant and left a more lasting mark on the place (e.g. for Thrace, but not for the Cyclades for example).
He misinterprets sources that are primary and my myriad secondary sources are ignored. And i get punished! The article is awful now. He just insists the page is full of sources from me that show they were greek with no doubt.Megistias (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting involved with this specifically because I have no particular interest in the outcome. I'm not punishing Megistias (unless he does something to deserve it). I've been careful to distinguish primary from secondary sources. And the article is not ruined. DS (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Megistias is referring to the fact that he got slapped with WP:ARBMAC and that the user who provoked this edit-war got away scott-free, not something you did. I also tend to think that this is somewhat unfair. Concerning sources, it is my understanding that the ancient, primary sources break down as follows: Plutarch explicitly states the Chaonians were Greek, Thucydides mentions them as "barbarians" (which may or may not mean they were Greek), Pseudo-Scylax simply omits them, while Hecateus of Miletus mentions them as Greek. Just like the secondary sources, no primary sources explicitly says they were non-Greek. And if they were Illyrian or Thracian (the only two non-Greek possibilities), there would exist a source that would mention that. To my knowledge, such a source, primary or secondary, does not exist. Rather, as Megistias points out, it seems there is overwhelming evidence that they were Greek. Therefore, the summary to your recent edit is perplexing. As far as I can tell, there is no disagreement among ancient sources either. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What can we do with this article? Should we put it again up for deletion?
Should we only rename it? User Carlosouares is writing an article for every part of Greece based on the biased book of Simovski.
I don’t think that he has realized the mistake he is doing. He thinks that he is fighting nationalists!!
Seleukosa (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Todor Hristov Simovski is a 100 % questionable source.All and any material ,references and articles based on him must be removed.He is POV and his books are unverifiable."Aegean Macedonia"? The book is nationalistic [10] to say the least and nothing more the Irredentism.How did this get through in wiki.Everything must be removed and appropriate measures be taken.Megistias (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The material has been scanned by someone heresimovski,obviously some irredendist from fyrom.See Simovski's bio and material from the Book.Clearly material that is trash.Even if this gets closed i have saved the related material.The articles should be deleted and any and all refs with this "simovski".Megistias (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You all claim that Simovski isn't reliable - do you have a reliable source as to (a) which ethnicities were majorities during various periods in these areas of Greece; and (b) what those people called their villages and towns? Simovski cites the Greek laws that made the changes in names. You concede that there was a change in ethnicity in population exchange, etc. Your buddy is removing Vlach names from Vlach places as well. Again, the Slavic names may have derived from the Greek, the Turkish, Albanian, or whatever, but it is what the Slavic people called these places. And as for "Aegean Macedonia" being problematic, it is the normal formulation of the region in Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Serbian sources, just as "East Thrace" is normal in Greek sources for European Turkey, even though the Turks don't like that formulation. I have asked Seleukos to show any error in Simovski information and he has been unable to do so, so while you all claim to have problems with the source, you have not come up with any contrary information (if you do, add it to the articles) or disproven any of information I have added. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World,by Loring M. Danforth,Page 41,"When Greek Macedonia was liberated in 1913 43% of the population was Greek,40 percent Moslem and 10% Bulgarian".On the populace.
Read any article on any country and you'll find that the history section talks about the history of the area the country occupies. You'll find Celts in Spanish and French history, Siouxs and Apaches in US history etc. You'll find Alexander the Great mentioned in the history sections of many countries, none of which he was connected with. Just to make myself clear, I no way was Alexander and the ancient Macedonians connected to present day Macedonians nor any Slavic groups, but that's not the point. As I said, every country has a history section going back in time to before the current country was established. JdeJ (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right, the Paeonians are dealt with in too much detail and the whole piece could be better written and more clearly focused. If you can manage a shorter version that keeps Alexander and make a brief mentioning of the Paeonians, that would be ideal! Cheers JdeJ (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Including the authors from Turkey and FYROM only makes it obvious that this whole argument of the westerners is antihellenic and the quote from Rosenberg and Gabb at the end shows it plainly. All without going out and explicitly calling it such, but simply letting the facts speak for themselves. Basically the paragraph paints them as the hate filled little antihellenist nazis they are all without saying so explicitly. I'd like to hear your thoughts.Xenovatis (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I looked at Stefov's website and it is your typical fringe-lunatic website of the usual sort. As for Bolokbashi, he seems to be a political hack on a Turkish government payroll (of the Polat Kaya type). I see your point, but I feel such trash doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article and moreover including them (even in the way you have in mind) automatically lends them an aura of respectability. An uninformed reader might not see them for what they are. As for the Western view, I feel that it is very common (I can't tell you how many times I've come across it), no matter how much we may dislike it. In a much older version of the article, this was addressed very well by the following passage (now deleted):
"Other scholars, notably popular in Nazi Germany, have supported the refuted theories of the 19th century historian Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who claimed that the ancient Greeks genetically disappeared at some point, and as modern Greeks have no genetic or cultural connection to them, Europe owes them nothing. It should be noted that Fallmerayer's theories specifically aimed at the Greeks of Morea (Peloponnese), which at the time constituted less than a sixth of the overall Greek population, a fact which was being constantly ignored by his later supporters. His essays were refuted by numerous scholars of his time and were characterised by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities as biased and unscientific."
It seems to me that what you have in mind is similar to the above passage, which I think does an excellent job of exposing this view for what it is. I propose re-adding it into the section, while taking care it doesn't become too big. Let me know what you think. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I only included the links in case anyone questioned whether there are Turks and Slavs who make these statements. I don't think there is any point in refuting Fallme since simply linking him to the Nazis with several citations discredits him more effectively than if we even deign refuting it. I will however be adding a citation on the genetics section on the low R1a1 (Slavic haplotype) occurence among Greeks (11%). Btw among Fyromians it is 35% which is the average for most Slavic people. Who would have thought...Xenovatis (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, keep them both out. I concur with Tsourkpk that Stefov and Bolokbashi are nonsense. But that old hat about Fallerayer-bashing is silly too. Especially that cheap rhetorical trick guilt-by-association trick ("notably popular in Nazi Germany"), which sat there unsourced for years, and the following completely OR argument. Fut.Perf.☼19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK then, let's keep the passage about Fallmerayer as is, and add something about the R1a1 data. I can't believe I didn't think of it earlier. I believe you have the article that appeared in 2000 in Science by Semino et al. in mind? --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on...it seems you try more than it is needed in order to get a "greek" nature of Saranda, which is not true, as far as we still have a concencus (I mean the first one, some months ago). Who would lie, about personalities that lived in a town, even if it is in albanian. Come on man, don`t be so nationalist......balkanian (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're complaining about. The requirement for sourcing applies to everything, whether it is "Albanisation" or "famous people". Those are just the rules of Wikipedia. Take a look at this assessment for the article on Gjirokaster by a neutral user: [[11]]. As for being nationalistic, tt seems you are the one who is implementing a double standard for sourcing: For Albanisation (which I dropped), you require very explicitly and specifically that a source in English says both "Albanisation" and "Saranda" in the same sentence (a rather strict requirement), yet here we are supposed to just take your word that these people are famous? The reason I object to them being included for now is not because they are ethnically Albanian, but because no one's ever heard of them outside Albania. That's probably why you haven't been able to find any sources in English about them and why the admin Cbrown agreed with my request. If these people were truly famous outside Albania, it wouldn't be hard to find material about their famousness in English. I'm sorry, but random websites and blogs simply won't do (a slippery slope, in fact). Feel free to ask anyone you want about this (Future Perfect, as an example), they'll tell you the same thing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I will ensure you that I am not a nationalist...but when you find a map (dubius at least) which says something untrue, I become such. There are four zones of greek majority in Albania, the Dropull zone (near Gjirokaster), the Vurg zone (near Saranda), the Himara town and Narta village. But ok, I assume that your map is right. It is said that there is a "forte majorite grek", Who can ensure me that this "majorite" is in the city of Korca and not in the sorrund villages??????? Please do not be blind with the history you learn in school, or by the Karaxaferidhes of your parliament. If I was, I would revert Atica`s pages, saying that they were arvanites there. It is the same shit. Find some kind of written references, like this ethnicity is x% that is y% and do not add any town with this "mappy" references...balkanian (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I will provide you with one shortly if you can be a little patient. BTW, the map is not dubious at all. It is from a very prestigious newspaper (one of the best out there, in fact). I think part of the problem is that being new to Wikipedia, you might be unfamiliar with the guidelines regarding sources. In that case I urge you to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, which should make everything clearer. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
An award
CONTRIBUTIVE CONTRIBUTER
This is an award for your contributive work on Wikipedia. Thank you for editing.
Alexander the Great
Ειδοποίησα έναν administrator ήδη. Ελπίζω να βοηθήσει. Δεν μπορεί να συνεχιστεί αυτή η ιστορία με το ίδιο άτομο. Πρέπει να αναλάβουν δράση και άλλα μέλη του Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece ώστε να σταματήσει αυτό. Το καλύτερο που έχουμε να κάνουμε είναι να τα καλέσουμε να δούνε τι συμβαίνει και να απευθυνθούμε σε administrators. Αν μπορείς κάντο κι εσύ. - Sthenel (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Al Beyrat
Προφανές τι thέλει. Όμως βάζοντας στο κείμενο τις 3 χώρες όπως τις έβαλα εγώ δηλ. τη δημοκρατία από τα πάνω μετά από την Αλ Μπανία φαίνεται ακόμα καλύτερα πόση σχέση έχουν. ;) Δεν είμαι εντελώς βλαξ. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Αfou epemene toso na vgei to tag gia to wikiproject Greece, as meinoun ektws kai ta synxrona kratoi apo to intro. Emmenw s'ayto. Nomizw pws dyskola tha mporesei na ferei antirhsh sta epixeireimata mou peri "cultural region of ancient Greece" kai "time period", kai nomizw pws stekontai logika apo mona tous, asxetws to discussion. Symfonhsa na bgei to "greek history" ws compromise, e as mas synantisei kai aytos sta misa tou dromou. Oxi na ypoxorhsoume kai se ola. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Siga mi DE ferei antirisi se "cultural region". Profanes trollaki. Tespa. Pantos an epimeinei, skepsou auto pou grafo parapano. Xamenoi de vgainoume, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Alimono mh DEN epimeinei. Opws eipes, kara-trollaki. Etsi pou to vlepw, de tha stamathsei me tipota, opote se kapoia fash tha anamixthoun kai tritoi. Opote to thema einai an exoume peistika epixeirhmata, dyskola tha mporesei na provalei peistikes antirhseis. Telos pantwn, as doume ti tha ginei kai blepoume. Sthn hstath periptosh, kanoume opws les. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note
I'm blocking you for 48 hours for your recent disruptive editing and pointless edit-warring: further, per WP:ARBMAC you are limited to one revert per page per day for 6 weeks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
see Nearchus Map discussion at Alexander the Great
Hello,
I'd just like to inform you that the current map (not the one you re-inserted) also shows the sea-voyage of Nearchus. Therefore there's no reason to re-insert the map you did. It is well-known that Alexander never went further south than the Egyptian capital of Memphis. The map you inserted is therefore not only redundant, but also inaccurate. Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You just beat me to it. I like how the 'list' was removed in the first place but an editor reinserted it with the justification of "rv vandalism" (must have been paying attention). Add to that the mildly racist comment by Keep it Fake, whose motives are as pure as snow...Cheers. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised you didn't catch that one before me --). Speaking of inane, have you seen these [12][13] . Seems like Toci is the new Dodona. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
How does it not have anything to do with the dispute? It has everything to do with it. The section was deleted by user:Hellasforever which is illegal to do. This is not the actual article, it was simply the discussion and I will not allow a random child to delete my words. I have a right to free speech and the articles were going to be added to the article (from non-Macedonians) since they viewed it as relevant! That was the reason it got deleted and it will be reposted in the future. Mactruth (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, don't insult me. One more of those little outbursts and you'll get reported. Now, as far as your postings, I will remind you that article's talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article in question, not for political grandstanding and playing out victim complexes. Your only interest in posting those "news" is to make Greeks look like aggressors and Slavomacedonians as innocent victims, and that's why they were removed. Not to mention most of those "news" outlets are of dubious reliability. Oh and by the way, using other users to get around your topic ban is a definite no-no. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Παιδιά εχουν βαλθει οι Αλβανοι να σβησουν ο,τιδηποτε ελληνικό ονομα πόλης ή χωριού της μειονότητας στην Αλβανία κατι που και επίσημα η Αλβανία το επιτρέπει αν υπάρχουν και τα ελληνικά ονόματα. Ο χρητης ArberBorici στην talk page για τα γεωγραφικά ονόματα στην αλβανία προσκαλέι κόσμο (στα αλβανικά) να συμμετάσχουν στην προσπάθεια.Πρέπει να κάνουμε κάτι.Είμαι και νέος στην Wikipedia και δεν ξέρω και πολλά για αυτό απευθύνθηκα εδώ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knonis (talk • contribs) 08:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ο χρήστης ΑρβερΒοριψι είναι, να μη πω τι είναι, αλλά και εσύ γιατί πας και αφαιρείς το αντίστοιχο Αλβανικό απ'το άρθρο της Ηπείρου; Αλβανικά καταλαβαίνεις, επί τη ευκαιρία; 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ευχαριστω παιδια.Οπως ειπα και πριν ενταξει ειμαι αρκετα νεος ως editor στη ΒικιΠαιδεια αλλα γενικα΄απο υπολογιστες τα παω καλα.Για το αρθρο της Ηπειρου λαθος τελικα γιατι νομιζα οτι ηταν για την περιφερεια της Ηπειρου και οχι για την περιοχη (region).Αλβανικα καταλαβαινω λιγα μπορει οχι ολες τις λεξεις αλλα νοημα βγαζω πανω κατω.Knonis (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
It's no bother. :) I'm patient and i'm waiting the conclusions and if you are wrong and it turns out I am not a sockpuppet, you don't have to apologize to me. I'll forgive you ;) But when an admin will do something about this case? I'm getting bored with it. --Aegean Boy (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That academic is, I understand, a Slavophone Greek, researching the peculiarities of the Slavic dialects in Macedonia (Greece). Early result are that they enjoy local allegiances, have a varying degree of Greek terms (straight or altered) and can be considered a native of Greece rather than an extension of the official Makedonski language in Skopje or the Bulgarian of Sofia. But the results inevitably place those dialects within the Slavic linguistic continuum, minus the labels. There was a time when Slavic dialects had too many Greek and/or Ottoman Turkish words to be considered Slavic or Greek dialects too many Slavic and/or Ottoman Turkish words to be considered Greek - it was a question of different continua blending and morphing... Kai meta erxonde oloi oi anisixoi kai oi propagandistes kai mas allazoun ta fota. Politis (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not a linguist, but from what I know, linguistic continua tend to be found within the same family (e.g. romance, as in the way the dialects of southern France blend into those of northern Spain) and not so much between languages in different families, such as Greek and Slavic. Although vocabulary is frequently shared between neighboring dialects of different language families, it is difficult for me to see how structural features and grammar from languages from different families can be combined. It should thus always be possible to determine to which language family a local dialect belongs by looking at structural features and grammar instead of vocabulary. It seems to me the only way languages from different families can be combined is in a creole or mixed language, which may or may not be the case here, although personally I doubt it. As for the article, I do not have access to it, but it's been around since 1994 and has been cited 0 times since then, so it's probably not that great. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are both right in some way. Yes, language convergence, even when it affects grammar, hardly ever obscures the original family relationship. But grammatical convergence can go pretty far. In a situation of progressing language loss we'd expect to see a lot of it. There's a famous study of some early 20th-century Cappadocian Greek dialects, shortly before becoming extinct, and they had apparently assimilated Turkish elements to an astonishing degree. In northern Greek Slavic, we'd certainly find effects of convergence towards Greek through language attrition too, perhaps similar to what's been shown for Arvanitika. It's not a Creole though, no, that's a different kettle of fish. Fut.Perf.☼20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating example about Cappadocian Greek, I had forgotten that one. I remember seeing an image of a book cover in Clogg of what was essentially Turkish, but written with Greek letters. Goes to show that language attrition can go pretty far indeed. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That would actually be yet a different thing, Karamanlidika. That was pure Turkish, but used by Turkophone Christians, who preferred the Greek alphabet over the Arabic one. The Cappadocian Greek story is somewhere in a book by a guy called Dawkins from 1916, I think. Fut.Perf.☼20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. There is a strong case to be made for a shared lexicon between the people's of the area. The older generations of Greeks, Bulgarians, coastal Turks, Slavs of the region, etc borrowed from eachother's lexical repertoir. They would have been able to to communicate with eachother - be it as survival level - with greater ease than us. For instance, the Turkish navy uses more Greek nautical words because until the 19th century their ships were mostly built and manned by Greeks - a book has been written in English on the subject but I can no longer locate it. Politis (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
good point. Our generation can't even communicate on a survival level (except maybe to insult each other, which would be real easy). That's a fascinating point about the Turkish navy. If you ever find that book let me know. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"northern Greek Slavic"... now there is food for thought; or even 'Greco-Slavic Macedonian', what a bouquet! Who knows, its time in linguistic parlance may yet come.
My favorite of all time is still ThracoIllyroPelasgoEpirotoArvanitoMacedonian (did I forget any?). You might not get that one, Politi, but I'm sure FP will :) --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Russia: European?
Russia is considered a European country because (amongst other things): 1) the efforts of Peter the Great to Europeanise it 2) the genetic heritage of Scandinavians (the Rus), and the Swedish Empire 3) the deliberate attempts of 19th Century authors to be seen in the European literature tradition (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc.) However, Siberia has an indigenous population which is not European. European settlement in Siberia has been largely for economic or political reasons, rather than a case of population migration.
If all of Russia is European, then surely all of turkey is asian, and pre 1800 much of the Balkans etc. is also AsianMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, but unfortunately this is a largely intractable question. As far the cities go, Moscow is definitely the largest, and it is 100% European. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
HI. Did you see my bit about city size on the europe talk page?
Moscow and London are both very big and very european. Hard to measure london's population - the UK doesn't have an official ID/citizenship register, and the voter's list doesn't include foreigners (or people under 16/17) and the last census was 7 years ago, and that doesn't include illegal immigrants, and people who are on the margins of sociey (through choice or circumstance). A good example is Slough where the council said they had many times more Polish migrants in their town than the official total (the council said their figure was based on people accessing services such as education etc.) the UK does not, oddly perhaps, keep a list of who has left the country, so even if evryone was documented entering (and they are not) it would be difficult to know how many returned overseas, and how many stayed on in an unofficial capacity. As a major cosmopolitan city, and a good source of employment, a lot of migrants to the country live in and around London. So you see the problem.
So it is hard to say how big london is, let alone compare it with moscow, which no doubt has some similar and some differeing problems when trying to define its size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edits surelyt appear to be vandalism. Please read wikipedia:NCGN, you will find there that albanian names should be added "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages" and that "Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1)." Please edit them back, in accordance to Wikipedia:NCGN.balkanian (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A handful of Cham Albanians that used to live there more than sixty years ago is not significant enough to warrant the inclusion of the name in Albanian in the lead. Otherwise , we should include the name in Greek of every single town and village in Southern Albania. And where do you see 10% of sources in the English language using the Albanian name for these places? Not even 1% does. Oh, and please do not accuse anyone who disagrees with you of "vandalism". That is an accusation so typical of POV-pushers. Good day. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
But how many "used to inhabit"? 1? 2? By your argument, every single town in village in Southern Albania should also have the Greek name. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Miranda Vickers, there was a strong minority in that area and in the towns and villages which I edited. So, please stop POV-pushing. If there was a strong minority in a town and village in Albania than feel free to add the greek name.balkanian (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
How about Durres and Vlore then? Since they were founded by Greeks, Greeks used to live there, so by your own argument we should include the name in Greek of both towns. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, whatever. I haven't broken any policy, which is why FP ignored your post, and why another user besides me reverted your edits. You only care about rules when it suits your own POV. You are wrong. Accept it. And I certainly don't appreciate you accusing me of breaking 3RR when I did not. That is really low and sneaky. Goodbye.--Tsourkpk (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your three edits in Himara page. This is certainly 3RR. WP:NCGN clearly states that "one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". What`s wrong with that? I have edited Vlora page, according to this policy, including its ancient greek name. The policy is clear.balkanian (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:3RR is if you exceed 3 reverts. Read the rules first before cynically using them to try to assassinate those that disagree with you. In any case, your immediate running to the admins to try and get rid of me is really low. Now get off my talk page. We are done here. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are clearly POV pushing and nationalist. WP:NCGN is clear. What`s wrong here? Can you read it nor no? What`s your theory about WP:NCNG???balkanian (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
your reference "even villages in the Himarë district are supposed to be Greek, and I have assumed a population of 5,000 here. More exact census figures could prove me wrong." What on hell. He says I have assummed, are supposed. could prove me wrong. in only tow sentences. it is your opinion otherwise, or what??????????balkanian (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Chameria
Thanks for cooperating, I agree with you, but there is only 1 point, which I do not agree. There are sources that say that there is an Albanian speaking population in Epirus, still today. We cannot remove it only because another study did not find this population.balkanian (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't view the first one because my connection is real bad, but the second source talks about Arvanites, which is not the same thing as Chams. Arvanites identify as Greeks. Also, the Helsinki source says "many" Chams collaborated with the Germans. I'll try viewing the first source in a bit. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Read it better, the second source states that Arvanites of Northwest Greece, identify themselves as shqiptar and their language as shqip and that Arvanites of Northwest Greece are part of the modern albanian nation. Read it carrefully.balkanian (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I did, but I VERY much doubt there are 30,000 native Albanians in the periphery of Epirus. IF there were that many, we'd all know it. The Helsinki source cites another source anyway, and we don't know how reliable it is. The Romanian source is academic and more reliable anyway. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hating WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I will say you that the last time I was in Greece I stayed for sme days in Igoumenitsa, and I was surprised by the language that some of them (the owner of the hotel where I stayed, a taxi driver, and a boy I met there) was speaking, it was Albanian. But this is wiki and what I said and what you said (IF there were that many, we'd all know it) is not an argument. About the real argument, we always had seen as reliable sources the Helsinki`s raports, so why isn`t this the case. I am sorry but I see that you don`t like it more than you don`t belive it. The Helsinki reports are always (and in wiki treated as) more reliable than a study conducted from a Romanian scholar, which does not state that there is not a language minority in there, but says that he couldn`t find it, in a three day trip (read the reference) mainly in one town, Igoumenitsa.balkanian (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with Romanian scholars? Are you saying that Romanians are bad scholars or something? Or do you just not like the implications? An academic source is an academic source, the ethnicity of the scholar is utterly irrelevant. Second, academic sources are always the most preferred. Period. The Helsinki source itself doesn't say anything about 30,000 Albanians in Epirus, but cites another source that is impossible to verify. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I have nothing with the ethnicity of the scholar. I didn`t mean anything saying that "than a study conducted from a Romanian scholar", my point was: "which does not state that there is not a language minority in there, but says that he couldn`t find it, in a three day trip (read the reference) mainly in one town, Igoumenitsa". and that Helsinki reports verify the sources they have, they`re not wikipedia, where you and me can writte and wrongcite whoever we want (till we`re being reverted or banned :-)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That he didn`t find an Albanian speaker, not that there is no Albanian speaker. (Maybe also that he did not try a lot, a study of three days???:-)). Whatever, I am saying that both of these sources should be added in the article. I have my doubts, about your source, you have doubts about mine. Wiki does not have doubt about none, neither a scholar, nor a Helsinki report.balkanian (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The existence of the Greek community is not disputed, just its size. And it is a very notable community, just by looking at the list of notable Himariotes. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, how can a town be notable for a minority, or for a majority, how can it be notable for its population. Is Athens notable for its greek population? I don`t think so. Is Saranda notable about its albanian majority or about its greek minority? I don`t think so. On the other hand why Himara would be notable for its greek minority (or majority), and not about its albanian minority (or majority)?????balkanian (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Because the Greek community there is very notable. It is known throughout the world, has very ancient roots, and has produced lots of notable people. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand I think that Petro Marko (an albanian writter) is more important than Sotir Nini, so what? I think you should leave it out from the lead, it is irrelevant and unsourced. You think it is notable for its greek minority, I think it is notable for the Llogara mountins. Find a source to prove it, or get it out from the lead.balkanian (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Greek community there has a very ancient and unique history, unique traditions and customs, local dialect, etc..All these factors make it extremely notable. Anyway, I really need to go, so let's continue this discussion some other time. I will add something about the mountains too, just to make you happy :) --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
haha, yep the mountins are great, you have to see them. I will not revert your sentece till you come back (i wish with a source and not an assumption).balkanian (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've pretty much said what I've had to say here and in the article talk page, and I know how you feel. Now let's see what other people think. --Tsourkpk (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not thretened by anything, I do not see things like a possible invasion (:-)). I think that that is irrelevant in Saranda. But whatever, I do not care.balkanian (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for reverting the Greater Albania edits that the anonymous user made, it's such a pain constantly making sure that someone won't add biased sentences like "One unfair decision" etc. :P Anyways, I've looked at your edits and you seem like a very good editor. Keep up the good work :) Oh, and I noticed that you never visited Serbia. If you're ever planning on it, I'll tell you which places are best to visit :) All the best, --GOD OF JUSTICE19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words. You are doing a good job yourself :) I only wish I had more time. I'd also love to visit Serbia, but again, not enough time. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get why you do not like this sentence [17]! In fact, this taken from a scholar's book specialized in early democracies in antiquity (Robinson Eric W., The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997 page 17) [18]... and describes perfectly well the fact that when ancient Greece started to flourish, Egypt was already ancient to the Greeks... I would suggest either change the sentence or leave it. It is needed to explain the situation! A.Cython (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I just happen not to like such sentences, and I also think they are completely unnecessary. Do we say Western Europe was a backwater while Greece was flourishing? No, so I don't see why in every "History of _____" article we have to mention every that Greece was a backwater and such. Why is it necessary to mention Greece's status relative to other civilizations every time? Is it because those civilizations are older and might have "discovered" democracy earlier? Not really, because a civilization's age has nothing to do with its likelihood of achiveing democratic goevernment. Egypt and China are some of the world's oldest civilization yet never achieved democracy. I also think the sentence is just not true. If we include the Minoan civilization (which existed on Greek soil), Egypt and Babylonia aren't that much older, and Minoan Crete was no backwater. Also, the article says something to the effect of "Democracy might have first been discovered elsewhere" twice: Right below "Pre-historic origins" and then again the same thing below "Alternative origins". So it is redundant. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I must admit that your arguments are strong... but you still we need to refresh to someone's mind that indeed Greece was cultural backwaters (the Minoan argument is rather weak since it cannot represent ancient Greece nor to be compared with ancient Egypt). Even within WP or scientific paper you must repeat some things for clarity! Not everyone is an expert in ancient history. Besides it is only one sentence and explains the motive of such researches/scholars to look beyond Greece for the origin of democracy. It has nothing to do with comparing with other civilizations. A.Cython (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I still think one sentence to that effect is enough, at the beginning of the subsection. Besides the article is already very long and can use a trim here and there. And let's please get rid of the "cultural backwater" bit. It really doesn't sit well with me. We don't use it on any other civilizations (e.g. Egypt, India, China, Americas, etc..., even when it might be true), so why Greece? Since a civilization's age has nothing to do with its likelihood of achiveing democratic goevernment, it is irrelevant to the article how advanced other civilizations were compared to Greece. Look at China, for example. It has been around forever, yet its society is set up in such a way that it hasn't had a democratic government in 4000+ years of history. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I made some small changes... (i.e. removing cultural backwaters) I still feel that it is needed for clarity. Let's leave it as it is, for now. I know that this article will grow... there are so many things to be said. In the future we might need to break the article into pieces, where the sentence will be required. A.Cython (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ελα ρε
μην τον αφήσεις τον Φιούτσερ να μας αποσπάσει απο την καρδιά του προβλήματος. Εχεις δίκιο πως ο ορισμός του παραδοσιακός είναι προβληματικός αλλά το σημαντικότερο είναι η όλη μεθοδολογία με την οποια δημιούργησε τον χάρτη η οποία πάσχει. Προσπαθεί τώρα να δώσει βάρος σε αυτό και να μην απαντήσει στην μεθοδολογία του και στην έλλειψη πηγών και αριθμών. Νομίζει πως αλλάζοντας το κείμενο κάτω απο τον χάρτη θα γλιτώσει απο την κριτική. Σε εκτιμώ ιδιαίτερα απο την συμβολή σου στα άρθρα του Βυζαντίου και ελπίζω να είσαι οσο ενεργός γίνεται στην συζήτηση.
Dimitar's back. Leaving most of the stuff in this time, but claiming the FT article never says that Macedonian opp. leaders ridiculed the Burusho visit as propaganda, and edit warring over that. kwami (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Notable Cham Albanians
Thanks for helping. I brought sources for Hasan Tahsin and Ali Demi. I want to discuss with you the problem of Shpata, Zenebishti and Losha, becouse you removed them to Arvanites article. Actually, these persons are the "fathers" of Arvanites and of Cham Albanians. Do not forget that Orthodox Cham Albanians are called Arvanites of Epirus in Greece (Helsinki monitor and Vickers) and actually in 1400 there was no distincion, because all were called "Arber", "Arberesh" (like arvanites call themselves). So we can use them both in Cham Albanians and Arvanites. Another fact is that some of this tribesmen and despots turned to muslims, and this is the first division of Cham Albanians to Orthodox and Muslim, like Jakup Shpata. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Personaly I will not be carrying on with your childish 'edit war' it is obvious that you are just another greek nationalist on wikipedia who thinks its ok that other unrecognised states are being represented in wikipedia... however TRNC can not be. At the end of the day I just cant be bothered with you, and it is unfortunate that there is no comprimises with you. Wherether Cyprus is written or not... the Turkish cypriots still live in the North and thats that. Justinz84 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: "TRNC"
Sorry, but I disagree. The northern occupied part of the island is de jure part of Cyprus, yet according to the Cypriot government and, I suppose most of the countries that have signed the Geneva Conventions, the Turks living there legally are about 100,000. By having the flag of Cyprus and a figure of 260,000 Turks there (including the internationally illegal Anatolian Turkish settlers and the tens of thousands of troops) it's like we imply that the Turks have spread all over the island; that the EU-member state Cyprus is 30% Turkish. Certainly it's not the case. So, I think it is better to use "TRNC" and let the readers cast its legitimacy on their own. Regards --Hectorian (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point there, but I still think displaying the TRNC flag as if it were a perfectly normal country is even more misleading. Many uninformed users could be led into thinking it is a legitimate country. Flags have a strong effect on people. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Emperordarius
Hi, thanks for reporting User:EmpD++. Seems I wasn't quite awake last night or I would have noticed immediately it's User:Emperordarius. Blocked both indef now for sockpuppetry, block evasion, personal attacks and other things. If he returns, please report him with a link to the original account, he should be easy enough to recognise. Fut.Perf.☼08:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically the only reason you dont want those people to be listed as it will expose the non-Greek character of many of the former inhabitants. If Georgi Ajanovski was greek he would be left their and never be removed, but because he is Macedonian there is so much controversy. Grow up. PMK1 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are the one who said that those people deserve to be mentioned because of their ethnicity, for example here. So if anyone is POV-pushing and needs to grow up, it is you. It seems you have nothing better to do than dig up every trivial political figure that may have been born in Greece in order to make Greek Macedonia appear less Greek and more "Macedonian". Well it's not happening, so if I were you I'd find something better to do. These people are not notable, since per WP:NOTABLE there are no non-partisan sources in English attesting to their notability. And furthermore they are not really from Kastoria or Edessa, since they just happened to be born there, which doesn't really mean anything. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That was meant as, you are not deleting her because of her notability but because of her ethnicity, that is the point that the greek users are trying to prove. Unless you can get the article deleted then she will be notable enough. I do not see why you persist on carrying on. If she was Greek then she would be left there but because she is a non-Greek we must automatically remove her. While many Greeks remain on lists of people in ROM, we are not just going to remove all of them for your racist reasons. We are not so insecure. PMK1 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Insults will get you nowhere, only a good block if you continue. She is a trivial figure, and you do not have a single source to prove her notability. The fact that there is an article about her is meaningless, since you created it in the first place. Your attempts to dig up every trivial figure from FYROM born in Greece and insert them in the respective city article is as hopeless as it is silly. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
How is the article trivial? How is she trivial? She is a member of the ruling party of the Republic of Macedonia, she is a well known jurist and she is a former political leader of the Macedonian Action Movement. If you believe that she is not notable enough than have her page deleted. PMK1 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In my dreams
lol Malaka,you are a looser :) but u still my friend
Why if it was not true I would say that? So if not Illyrians,Albanias wore Greeks than.Pick one plz!!!
All the sources,books,references won't change your mind I don't know what will.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
p.s.yesterday Greece ordered tear gas from Albania,are u guys doing OK over there?
I understand your point of view but I'm afraid I cannot agree. Either we apply an alphabetical order or a numerical order, and I'm fine with both. But to have a numerical order at some levels and then an alphabetical order at other levels is only confusing and not very helpful for the reader. Personally, I don't really care which order we apply, but it has to be consistent throughout.JdeJ (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, I also think that a numerical order would make more sense so if you have the time to do it, please go ahead.JdeJ (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, talk about the changes in the talk page. Nothing is tendious, I just added too muxch info, which may be NPOV, and I am ready to work on it. Thanks Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about specifically? I only removed some stuff that was entirely irrelevant and made the article too long (which it still is). --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I let only the first sentence, in order to say that :look guys, the other albanian villages, are not chams, I removed the tow sentences about the population of Lehovo, etc.
As for the population of Thesprotia, I think that it is important, because, as far as there are sources that say that there live Orthodox Cham Albanians/Arvanites of Epirus, than it is normal to say, which is the exact number of the residents. What do u think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid his edit. He provides no reason for undoing his edits, seems to be purely opinion-based. Don't hesitate to report him to WP:3RR if he persists. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Tell me what it says here: "Le groupe qui arrive en second rang au point de vue numérique est constitué par les Arvanites de Tsamouria en Epire. Ils constituent la limite la plus méridionale d'expansion de la langue albanaise, où soit parlée la variété dialectale dite tsam. Cette population importante répond au nom de Tchams et la région où elle est implantée est appelée Ts(i)amiko. Les Tchams musulmans ont émigré massivement en Albanie, à la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. La majorité d'entre eux ayant collaboré avec les forces d'occupation, le reste de la population a été conduit à exercer des représailles et les Tchams ont été expulsés par la Résistance grecque. Aujourd'hui, on ne recense guère plus de 100 à 150 sujets Tchams musulmans en Grèce." --Athenean (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as no rules or policies are broken (multiple votes, etc) there may be valid reasons for multiple accounts as per the link above. One certainly should never edit the same article with both, but that's not usually immediately blockable. A user has no need explain their reasonings to anyone. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you want to withdraw a remark you've made (and I know you do) the best way to do it to strike through your text. It's usually not a good idea to edit your own posts, because it can cause confusion in other editors and make replies look out-of-place. It is never a good idea to remove other editors' replies when deleting your own remarks. Hope this helps. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at this. The article has been degenerating ever since Future Perfect of Sunrise deleted the infobox, and consequently the ISO-codes due to his POV pushing.
I'm sorry, but I know very little about this field. My edits on articles such as that usually only deal with reverting blatant vandlism or nationalist POV-pushing (of the familiar kind). I'll keep an eye out though. --Athenean (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
For this kind of article, only academic, peer reviewed journals will do. WP:RS is where you want to look for more guidelines on sources. Websites such as Hindu.com are definitely NOT appropriate sources. --Athenean (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Hindu inappropriate? It's the national newspaper of India, hence the most credible newspaper source for such articles in my view. --91.130.91.27 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Because it is not a scientific publication. It is reliable for some things, but in this type of article we need peer-reviewed academic sources, not everyday newspapers. --Athenean (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
etymology of Makednos/Macedonia
Do you know that in all articles, the etymology of these widely accepted and acknowledged by the academic community Greek words have been conveniently described as "Indoeuropean" with a Greek Dorian equivalent and then further attested as to their non Greekness? Although the Indoeuropean hypothesis is a very valid argument, it still remains an obscure language, the possible progenitor of many European and non-European languages, GREEK AMONG THEM. Most if not all Greek words are alloted Indoeuropean roots! Yet this language is proposed as the main etymology of the word and the Greek hypothesis is discredited. If they keep doing this, then the next step will be to etymologize all Greek loans as "Indoeuropean", an absurdity in itself... This should be the supporting theory, not the main theory in these articles. The sad part is that should I work on this now, I would be accused of "nationalism" and "POV pushing", although everybody would know that I am right... Therefore, I think that it would be better to leave my edits as they stand, a preferable and neutral etymology. See for yourself in all the relative articles. GK1973 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware and I agree with you. I removed most of the section anyway, because i think it is totally superfluous in the country article. Macedonia (terminology) is where it belongs, really. Check it out. --Athenean (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to edit in good faith. We are all reasonable and educated people, so we must try to be as NPOV as possible, given that this is hard to achieve in 'Balkan' articles, even for so-called intellectuals like us, LOL. I wan't to know why you insist on reverting the bit on Phillip and Demosthenes. It apears that anything which goes against the Greekness of Macedonians is immediately reverted, no matter what, with a host of excuses given. Why, in the ancients section, only quotes testifying the Greekness of macedonians are given, but those in opposition are conveniantly always glossed over, excluded and/or editorialized by greek editors which amounts to expressing their own opinion that the conclusion should not be considered. What happened to proper academic approach, and presenting all the facts and letting the reader decide ? ? Furthermore, I have had a look at the catalogue of authors in support of the greek origins of the makedoni. Yes, they say that the macedonians were greek-speaking, or of Dorian extraction (notwithstanding that the Dorian invasion theory has been questioned), yet the fact that they also point out that, notwithstanding linguistic similarities (which are in any case based on very meagre evidence), culturally and politically , the makedones were not entirely Greek, or at least noteworthily distant and/or influenced by other northern 'barbarians'. Are we just going to sweep these caveates under the carpet so that people remain ignorant ? I would hope that just because of one's background, and pride, we do not degrade the quality of articles. Hxseek (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article does mention that the Greekness of the Macedonians was questioned by Demosthenes, so I don't understand what your alluding to. Two sentences on it, in fact. Do we really need a third sentence on that? I don't think so (and unsourced at that). In fact, the article mentions very little about the Greekness of the Macedonians, which, by the way is the prevailing academic consensus. Moreover, Demosthenes' objections were politically motivated, and are not of a scholarly nature. As for the removal of those two sources, well, neither of those two sources seems particularly reliable to me. Hope that answers your questions.
yes it states that it was politically motivated, but does not state that there obviously must have been underlying doubt in the first place, otherwise why would he bring it up ? Demosthenes didn;t just make it up out of thin air. The source is reliable, and is fact an existing source provided. If you understand the political ploys, then why doesn;t the article also include the opinion of some scholars that Alexander procalimed himself to be Greek to also as a political ploy. furthermore, why isn't Demosthenes direct quote included, like the direct quotes of other ancient writers. See, constant double standards. Hxseek (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The bit about "there obviously must have been underlying doubt in the first place, otherwise why would he bring it up ? " sounds a little ORish to me. Does your source actually state that? I'd like to see an in-line citation. If it is indeed the case, is uppose we can include it. But i need to see proof first. Regards. --Athenean (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, from vanderpool's book, Borza contribution. Pg 11:
On balance, the story of Alexander's participation at Olympia deserves skepticism, not only because of improbability, but also becuase the only evidence is what Herodotus has given us, and that is certainly what was told him by his Macedonian sources. There is no independent confirmation. If the tale is a piece of Macedonian propaganda .... The planting of an Argive connection had bloomed. ..it quickly becmae macedonian canon: the rulers of Macedon were greeks, Temenidae descended from Herakles.
That there was doubt aabout these matters among at least some Greeks, however, is confirmined by the attitude of Alexander's fellow competitors (if indeed he competed) and a centruay and a half later, by Demosthenes' cry that phillip "is not greek, nor related to Greeks", a comment which, regardless of Demosthenes' intent, was surely designed to play upon preexisting skepticism.
Not only is it Borza. Other's from the list of sources provided in the article as those "most authors who advocate a Greek origin" actually clarify that there existed significant cultural and political distance between Maceodnians and Greeks. Surely you well know that Macedonia and Greek poleis are nearly always mentioned in separation (in texts and in atlases). Nor do these sources clearly state that even if we accept the Argeads' ancestry claims, then the ethnic affiliation of the rest of the Makedones cannot be confidently ascertained. That they had Illyrian and Thracian influences and contributions is a real possibilty. As I have been trying to highlight in the talk page, the area was full of illyrian and Thracian archaeological finds. That these people 'disappear' (ie were replaced) by the Makedones after their arrival to lower Macedonia simply does not fit with how historians view migrations these days.
What I am saying is entirely based on scholarship. Belive it or not, i am not trying to simply dismiss that (possibly) macedonians spoke a related languae to greek, and (possibly) were an archaic Dorian tribe, especially given that I accept that this is the general concensus. But a reasonable body of scholars maitain that they were not pure and simple "Greeks", reasoning which is not fringe nor nationalistic Hxseek (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Illyria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --DIREKTOR(TALK)20:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I give you 24 more hours!If you dont give me any answer then i will go to the moderators and ask them personally to repost the content,since there is noone opposing!And i did talk really normal!Who do you think you are for removing somebodies comment like that??You are not a moderator!You are a normal user just like me!So stop threating,or I will report you!Remember:"24 HOURS"!--Jurgentalk20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, yes, other smaller contributors would be the Arab Caliphate, the Indian nations that gave English users Sanskrit words, and perhaps the Mongols who gave us the violin bow, cannons (which radically shaped the Europe we know today) etc.
The statement recognises the huge contributions Greece, Rome and the Protestant North has played in shaping Western Civilisation, while giving a nod to the Eastern origins of Western Civilisation.
Sorry, but I disagree. If we include civilizations that invented artifacts or things that Europeans borrowed, then we would have to include the whole world. What about the Americas, who gave Europe the potato, the tomato, etc...China, with paper, gunpowder, etc...Western civilization is fundamentally about ideas, not objects like the violin bow and cannons. --Athenean (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm with TheThankful. What are inventions if not ideas? I'd also suggest music is a major cultural element, and, considering the prominence of the violin in Western music, a substancial contribution to Western culture. The written language is also extraordinarily significant, when comparing the cultures of literate and preliterate societies. Europe owes the very means it communicates ideas, to the cuture's origins in the Middle East. --LemborLembor (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Trouble for you is, I long ago ceased believing anything you say. So you will have to show me that a) Biris is a reliable source, and b) if that's the case, that they are indeed 20%. Then and only then I might be willing to consider it. But don't expect me to just take your word for it. --Athenean (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, on Andros, you have Titos Jochalas, on his book "Andros: Arvanites kai Arvanitika", when he states that they are about 1 fifth of the population, occupying the northern region of the island.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The "source" is a book on socio-linguistics, not a history book. Stop cherry picking, and don't call my edits vandalism. --Athenean (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but it is a secondary RS, find a source on your claim, and we are ok. If you do not have a source and do not dispute the reliability of the one I brought, stop vandalising. Cheers, Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
On Andros and Salamis, give me page numbers and preferrably the google books link, and we can talk. For Kountouriotis, forget it. Trudgill is a general book on socio-linguistic change and is not acceptable for this sort of thing. --Athenean (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
About the Arvanitic names, I believe they should be written in Greek letters like Arvanitika was always written (they were never written in Latin), off course if there was a Arvanitic presence in the place.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, Arvanites are natives on Andros, they have their own name for the island. WP:NCGN states that it should be in the lead. Whats the problem with that? About the arvanitic alphabet, I am ok.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on, Future Perfect told you very clearly why it doesn't belong in the lead. No one is removing it, just moving it to a more appropriate location. --Athenean (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Athenean. On Igoumenitsa's talk nobody answering anymore there. Please tell me if you agree in my last proposition (phrace) so to go to editing --Factuarius (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Athenean. You've already made some comments about the controversial edits of Sarandioti. From your talk page I perceive that you may have worked with the naming controversy about places in Albania that may or may not have a former Greek connection. Do you have some spare time to collect background data that might be used in further discussions? Here are my questions:
What are some of the articles on places (or people) that have both Greek and Albanian connection, where revert-warring has happened in the past?
Are you aware of any sensible discussions on this issue? For example, talk pages where evidence has been collected and weighed as to how geographic names can be most fairly assigned? Especially if WP:NCGN is mentioned?
Hello, Athenean. A recent arbitration request in which you were named as a party, "Arbitration request on greek/albanian zones", has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. If this is still an issue that needs resolution, please pursue other areas in dispute resolution first, such as a third opinion, request for comment, or informal or formal mediation (preferably roughly in that order). Should you need assistance getting yourself and the other editors involved started on one of these processes, please feel free to contact me or another administrator. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold(t/a/c)17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
POV tag on Chams
I write this here and not in the Chams article both in the belief that it has no place on the talk page of the Chams and almost certain that it will be read by all those concerned. Athenian, if you believe there is a pattern of tag-reverting, you may wish to keep track of such tag-reverting initiatives somewhere for future reference. Politis (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Illyria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.