Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
if i'm not greek, hehe ...hehe..run baby, no wait don't run....let's do this slowly...ur way...slow painful..end..u like that.....come on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
if i'm not greek, hehe ...hehe..run baby, no wait don't run....let's do this slowly...ur way...slow painful..end..u like that.....come on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Ancient vs. Modern==
Look Athenean, I hate making this personal but you don't own wikipedia. '''stop''' deleting sourced material. That is '''against wikipedia policy.''' It is very clear that ancient greeks and modern greeks are not the same thing - we wouldn't claim that ancient egyptians and modern egyptians are the same so stop pushing your POV. ] (]) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:50, 3 July 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greeks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
<Drumroll> Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I present a preliminary image of the 25 notable Greeks we had agreed upon by consensus. Note that for some people, e.g. Archimedes and Hypatia, I used ό,τι με φώτησε ο θεός so to speak. Thoughts, suggestions, hate mail? Athenean (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
</Drumroll> You forgot to stop the drumroll. It was deafening. Seriously though, why are some pics distorted? Some look overly stretched/flattened. Dr.K.21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Συγχαριτήρια για τι θεία επιφώτηση. Just a few notes:
In the bottom row, some images seem to be distorted (Piros is too broad, Makarios and the guy next to him seem too thin.)
There also many others I would have liked to see included but this is a settled matter we cannot go over and over again. We already had the time for proposals and discussions. Anyway, I think that this gallery shouldn't be permanent. It could be updated after a period of time (i.e. every 3 months maybe) where we could "rotate" some characters under the same democratic rule of election. We may induce -let's say 5 changes - therefore we choose the 5 personalities we desire to change and the new 5 we will include. Most of your choices surely qualify, indeed. Periptero (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I made some changes. Is it better now? I just updated the uploaded image instead of uploading a new one, so the changes should be visible to the version posted here. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed El Greco, I hope. Two questions: Is everyone in agreement with replacing Nikiphoros Phokas with Alexius Komnenos? I'm asking because the Alexius pic isn't as good . Also, is everyone in favor of using the Louvre bust of Alexander instead of the mosaic? I want to be 100% sure because if I change the images, I have to upload the new collage as a separate file since the permissions will be different, and uploading is quite a bit of work. Athenean (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Athenean. El Greco is ok now, IMO. The bust of Alexander would be better because it would show more detail and there are also other busts as well in the collage. As far as Alexios I agree his picture is not that great. Dr.K.03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
For Alexios, we also have this image. Which brings me to an important point: if we want the gallery to look nice, then the shots should be either head or at most bust, not of various perspectives, i.e. full-length, half-length etc all mixed together. Constantine ✍ 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted both graphics-experienced editors Costantine has suggested to help in compiling a nice-looking collage. Let us wait a while and see if they answer back -and if they accept to do the job-. If we have the other collages we can compare them and chose the one we like. Else, we go ahead just with this one which is a very good one to start.Periptero (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that Nikiphoros Phokas is an important figure and more famous than Komnenos amongst the Greeks and I dont see something wrong with his image
Totally agree (in fact Phokas was in my original list), but it is another settled matter. When the election result was obtained, I submitted the whole list to WPGR Pr. admins. or qualified editors for approval and after Constantine's advice -read bove "Results ..." - and the consensus of the rest we replaced him by Komnenos. The image itself is not the question.Periptero (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I liked that the figures are in chronological order and that the collage starts with Homer, who is definetely the "ethnarch" of the greek nation. I think that for Pericles the old image is more nice (from the existing collage of the article) and if it was in my hand I would use this for Plato http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Plato_Pio-Clemetino_Inv305.jpg
Now about Alexander, personally I prefer the mosaic aiming to a variety , instead of only busts for the ancients
Greco22 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer mine as well. The heads are all way too big in Phillyboy's version. Also the Leonidas pic is problematic, Plato is placed after Aristotle, that's not Archimedes (but rather Archidamos of Sparta, often mistaken for Archimedes due to the similarity of the names), nor is that Hypatia. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am torn regarding the mosaic: I want it for variety, like Greco22, but I think the bust looks better with the current image size (although it looks good when the image is zoomed up). Athenean (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't take it the wrong way, but I think I agree with Cplakidas here and would go for Philly's version except for the Leonidas and the (plainly unacceptable) Hypatia-who-isn't. About the size of the heads, please keep in mind that they must be visible at a very small total size of the image, so the bigger the faces in relation to the whole, the better the overall readability. Fut.Perf.☼19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, I only now notice that several more people were exchanged. Who is the new middle guy in the second row, and who is the new middle person among the Byzantines? Fut.Perf.☼19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The new guy in the second row is Plato, but he is incorrectly placed before Aristotle. The new Byzantine guy is Alexios Komnenos, but I think it's the wrong one. And that's definitely not Archimedes. No idea who is the guy who replaced Cavafy, either. Regarding size, I think the size at which my collage is showing (350px) is large enough so that the individuals are shown clearly, but small enough to fit in an infobox. I think in Phillyboy's version the images are too small. Compare the infobox at Italians with that of French people or Turkish people, which one is better? Personally, I like showing a little more of the body for context (e.g. I feel Karaiskakis' head is way too big in Phillyboy's version). My vote for best collage: Poles. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
About Kavafy, sorry for not noticing at once, that's in fact still him, at a younger age (although the later portrait is somehow more characteristic.) About Alexius, yep, thanks, wrong person (and a quite unimportant personality too). About size, not that I would want to launch into my campaign of fundamental opposition again, but I still say, the smaller the better. We want at least some part of the real infobox contents to be still visible on the screen without scrolling down. Fut.Perf.☼20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean. His collage is a good base for discussion
If everyone makes a collage finally we will get confused
Greco22 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, some of the images in my version could use some cropping (e.g. Kolokotronis). But I do like the way that part of Bouboulina's and Karaiskakis' outfits are showing. I am working on version 2.0, taking into account some of the recent input, coming soon to a talkpage near you. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Some thoughts about changes in moderns:
Why Karaiskakis and not Alexander Ypsilantis (1792–1828) who started the revolution in Romania and he is also more famous? Karaiskakis was one of the many generals of the revolution
We could replace also Bouboulina (for the same reason) with Basilios Bessarion for having a represantion of Greek scholars in Renessaince
I agree that Maria Callas is more well-known than Pyrros Dimas, but it would be nice to have living person in there. Also, the Greek scholars of the Renaissance are represented through Gemistos Plethon.
Greco we could replace the whole 25 personalities we have chosen with the ones you propose and still be a remarkable collage. But we have already decided the ones that will be included in THIS collage. Why Karaiskakis and not Ypsilantis? Because we have voted and chosen like that. Why Pyrros and not Maria Callas? Because of the same reason. Why not replacing Bouboulina with Bessarion? Because it would be a lack of respect for those users who got involved from the begining (it was not your case) and chose Lascarina. There are many I would like to see in the 25 and others that I consider not worth to be included there. But we set the rules from the start, it is useless to continue trying to remove some and adding others. THE TIME FOR SELECTION IS OVER and we all agreed to accept the result. In a reasonable period of time (3 months? 6 months?) we may replace five personalities and there you may induce as many as you want. THIS COLLAGE STAYS AS IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS THE CHOSEN BY THE MAJORITY. What we are trying to do now is to look for the better image for the gallery, and decide which picture suits better, in the case we have more than one. If you happen to help please go ahead. Else, you are going over a matter which is fait accompli.- Periptero (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
@Periptero 1) relax, 2) in wikipedia we do not vote, we discuss 3)you are not any kind of wikipedian "dictator" to say TIME IS OVER ---you are not alone here----
4)you change mind every day cause yesterday seemed you agreed with me (as I see its obvious that you decided abt some personalities that you like as Karaiskakis for example, plus without knowing well the greek history---otherwise you could state some arguments)
5)I try to offer my opinions for a better and more represantative collage
6)Improve your behaviour
Greco22 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to stay to the representation point and not to the "racial", even if μουστακαληδες next to ancient greeks is pleasure for the anti-greeks and a nice example of kitsch
Greco22 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Greco please, try to understand. I do not intend to have an argument with you. Just I want you to see that we have all consensed from the begining and set the rules about this whole project. We have been through the proposal stage, the discussion stage and the selection stage. We are now at the image editing stage. Here is where you got through and added certain very interesting points. But we cannot go through the whole selection over and over again, just because you were absent at the begining. If we change the results freakishly we are not respecting the decision of the majority and it is a lack of respect to those users who spent their time by voting. Indeed we voted, because as Cavafy -whom I did not propose- got more votes than Elytis -whom I proposed- he is in the gallery, but Elytis isn't.Periptero (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Karaiskakis, I gave my own opinion about him in the preliminary stage. If you want to knwo what I think, you may also read the article for Spanish WP that I co-wrote: http://es.wikipedia.org/Georgios_Karaiskakis
I also admire Ypsilantis very much, but this is a matter for further discussions which I invite you to do via my user's talk page where you may even get to know that my knowledge in Greek history is not that elementary.
What I want to point to you is that if you keep on pulling back each time by trying to replace this by the other we will never move forward. And this is what you have been doing so far. Anyway, so as for you to feel better and understand that I won't take this matter personal I assure you that I quit the discussions. Quoting Xenophon, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα I hope somone else deals with it.- Periptero (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
<Drumroll> Here is Version 2.0. Replaced the image of Pericles and decided to go along with the bust of Alexander, and also replaced Nicky "The Hammer" Phokas with (a rather creepy-looking, in my opinion) Al "The Machine" Komnenos, as it seemed most people preferred that. </Drumroll>
Personally I think that Phillyboy's artistic version but with Athenean's picture ammendments is the greatest combination.Periptero (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@Periptero I think you have the tension to exegerate
The whole subject as I see in the discussion section started from the late December. You think that 6 or 7 days are enough for a discussion such this? I guess there are many Greek editors that would want to say their opinion even now and they have no idea about all this...
Seems like an express-process collage. Most of the personalities were suggested by yourself (and I dont find it bad but at least listen and to other people!)
Dont argue all the time abt "voting" which ended . Thanks God, I can read and I see that a short discussion has taken place before "time was over" as you say all the time. It is not a tv-show or sms votes, neither we are 500 or 1000 opinions that have voted
I dont write all this offensively to you. I just want you to understand that the more we discuss ,the collage is getting better...
You want Karaiskakis fine! Say why you think he has to be in a collage like this and let me also express my opinion, historically and why not? aesthetically also to avoid kitsch. Thank you
Greco22 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Enough with the Karaiskakis' subject chap. Just if you want to know, he represents for me the Greek soldier of popular extraction, with little education but brave, highly intelligent and determined. Not trained with British troops or in Russian academies but with kleftic craftiness and wisdom. His military genius was not limited to ground combat but he was also the author of several plans of attack based on amphibious operations (we are at the begining of the XIX century !) that were never carried out only by the ineptitude and incompetence of both the British military and navy, as well as the local authorities. There is consensus among military historians that the amphibious operations suggested by Karaiskakis would have meant total victory for the Greeks, and could have shortened three years the war of Independence. I was really proud to read in the military school where I was educated, manuals in Spanish evoking these things about him. Those are just a few reasons why in my humble opinion, I considered him to be included but even if he is not, it doesn't change my mood. What I do not stand is how you arrive late and start turning things upside down freakishly, breaking up an undestanding and creating an unoperative spirit. The fact that most of the personalities were proposed by myself becomes anecdotic; it just happened to be me the one who started with the idea, nothing else. The other users confirmed many, objected some and added their own choices. It is not a question of rushing in time, but a question of making either "res non verba" or falling in a "byzantine discussion" (pun intended) such as this one. I think there is nothing left to say between you and me. Let us finish here.- Periptero (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You know in Greece there is a proverb Γιαννης κερνα ,Γιαννης πινει (John offers, John drinks his offer) Is said when somebody sets his rules arbitrarily and thinks that everyone has to obey. This happens right now to you. If you look up you will see whose comments are polite and whose are "friky"
You baptize a simple conversation betweenthree editors, "voting process" and you dont want to listen anything else
I think the spirit of wiki is democratic and plus, personally, as a Greek, I m not sheep to sut my "mouth" closed
are you Karaiskakis nephew? I like that in your military school, you learned abt Karaiskakis, maybe you should learn also and about other brave men of Greek revolution and history, as for example Kolokotronis or the poor Kanaris from Psara who dominated Aigaion and became bugbear for the turks. If we had places, I would like to put even Athanasios Diakos who was massacred. You got angry cause i said that Ypsilantis started the revolution and he was the leader of Filiki Etaireia, while Karaiskakis was one of many generals, and you had nothing to say.
Your attitude is definetely childish.Ciao ciao
Greco22 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, it is evident that I make myself not clear to you. There is enough said about. It is is not a clash between Karaiskakis and Ypsilantis and of course I do admire Ypsilantis. I am not placing Karaiskakis on top of the 1821 heroes ... please ! If the others agree, do change Karaiskakis ...ok? How can I denny Kolokotronis or Kanaris? I have never stated so. Do you really know how much I learned or not about the Greek revolution so as to judge my knowledge? (Maybe paying a visit to some of my contributions made or articles I wrote will show you a different opinion) This not the point here. What I dislike about you, is that you discredit the whole process just because you were absent. There were much more than three people discussing in the whole term. You weren't. And then you arrive and start questioning decisions that others arranged. We won't agree so let us not continue clashing since it is not a forum, but as it seems you want to, you are welcome to my personal talk page. Ἐγὼ δὲ ὀφείλω λέγειν τὰ λεγόμενα, πείθεσθαί γε μὲν οὐ παντάπασι ὀφείλω. Periptero (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
OK guys, please let's stop this here. The discussion has been derailed enough. Greco, for better or for worse, the discussion as to who to include is over. If everyone who has a favourite continued to press for his/her inclusion we'd be at it for ages and nothing would get done. Let me remind you all that in any event, this is a relatively trivial issue. Please spend your time, intellect and knowledge in writing articles, not debating who to include in galleries.
Now, commenting on Athenean's new version... Especially in small resolutions, some figures are impossible to distinguish (Bouboulina, Archimedes, Hypatia, Basil II and Alexios Komnenos), and need a smaller cropping and zooming in. I'd also suggest a closer zoom on Leonidas' head, and using s slightly different crop for Venizelos (i.e. removing the black empty space underneath so as to "draw" him a bit more to the center). I think that as a rule of thumb, the eyes of each subject should be in the third quarter of the image Constantine ✍ 12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
PS if Philly boy92 can fix his errors I'd still support his version though, Both for uniformity, and because I find the addition of the white border between the thumbnails to be aesthetically pleasing. Constantine ✍ 12:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I hear your concerns and thought about them for quite a while, so here is the latest version. I've cropped most of the images, however, regarding the white space around each image, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I also insist on retaining the costumes (e.g. Bouboulina), as they are an integral part of Greek culture (much more so than the facial features, after all, Balkaners look alike). Now then, unless someone objects strenuously, I will place this version in the infobox in the near future. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Greek ethnic continuity? (continuation of Mixed Topic)
Mcorazao was correct in much of what he said under the heading of Mixed Topic (above). Unfortunately, he failed to get to the point on sources. It is in fact a mainstream academic point of view (outside of Greece) that it is bogus to claim the certainty f ethnic continuity for modern Greeks and 'ancient Greeks'. Here's just one example:
“Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries A.D. by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and later, Albanian immigrants …modern Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out”
Anthony D. Smith, ‘National Identity’ (1991) ISBN 0-14-012565-5, p.29
One could also add in Turkish migration and others. It's a great omission in the article, which makes it read like either a piece of Byronic romanticism or Greek nationalism. It should be corrected. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "ethnic" continuity? If you mean continuity of descent, then I think most Greeks would agree with you. However the Greek "identity" in all its subsequent forms and names has stopped being bound to common descent at least since late Hellenistic times. And that goes for just about any other nation or ethnicity in Europe today, including far more "modern" nations like the French or the Germans. There is however a continuous cultural identity, whose contents and form of course have changed over time, but which has never suffered such a brutal breach of continuity. See Periptero's arguments in the discussion above. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not what the editors responding to Mcorazao said, and that's not the impression given by the Article. @continuity of descent' is exactly what they argued for. I take it then you would support a clarification on this in the Article? DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would. The Slavic invasions at least should be mentioned, but also the re-hellenization by resettlement from Greek populations in southern Italy and Anatolia in the 9th century. Fallmerayer ought to be mentioned too, as he pretty much opened the whole issue of "Greekness" (in terms of purely racial descent) of modern Greeks, as well as the rebuttals to his theory. I am however not really qualified to say how this issue ought to be best stated; it can too easily diverge into supporting the one or the other side of the argument. Constantine ✍ 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to read Arnold Toynbee's "The Greeks and their Heritages", 1981 Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), ISBN 0-19-215256-4, where you will find that it is neither by chance nor by coincidence that modern Greeks bear the same name of their ancient ancestors (Έλληνες). There is an unbroken cultural history & tradition, as well as an inhabitation of the same territory by Greek-speaking people for millenia. There relies the ethnic continuity through descent and has nothing to do with "racial purity". Periptero (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite what has been mentioned by Cplakidas and Periptero, perhaps it ought to be said that the period of the Slavic migrations is quite dark and many aspects of it are still debated, including demography. As such the statement "mainstream academic point of view", at least among specialists in the relevant fields (which excludes Smith, who is good in *his* field), by DeCausa is an erroneous one. Also, sorry, but what is exactly the "ethnic continuity" DeCausa mentions? Is there an "ethnic" difference between a formerly slav speaker that is Greek and between a formerly pre-Greek speaker that is Greek? So, DeCausa is basically talking about "genetic/racial continuity" here, no need to dance around the term. The Hellenization of Anatolia up to Cappadocia and the Pontus by the time of the Slavic migrations needs to be mentioned as well, I mean imagine how *that* event changed Greek genetics. Jesus Christ... 87.202.129.162 (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole discussion has been triggered by a rather puzzling post indeed. DeCausa is basically citing a source that refutes him, you don't need to read more than the three first pages of the chapter where those sentences are contained to understand it. So, in the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again ? What are you trying to say and what changes are you asking exactly DeCausa ?--77.49.202.231 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, only Constantine seems to have got the point I was making. The reference to Toynbee and the other three pages in Smith's chapter is exactly the point - and is missing from this Article. Most of the editors in the previous discussion were arguing from the point of view of continuity of, effectively, genetic descent. The article is written from the same perspective. I think there should be a specific section discussing the issues of descent and making it clear that the mainstream view is that 'Greek' population history is about cultural/linguistic continuity in the same territory and not about (or at least not proven to be about) continuity by genetic descent. DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course the continuity is cultural/linguistic. This remains a strong evidence for the ethnic compound. The exact "racial conection" may only be given through genetics. If we take this solid argument as valid there is no ethnic connection in any people since there is no strong or reliable scientific empiric evidence (there are important genetic reasearchs but they are not universally accepted yet). Till then, the cultural substractum is the stronger. DeCausa tries to point that there is no racial connection -therefore no link- between Modern Greeks (including Medieval, I think) and Ancient Greeks which is a major argument used by Anglo-saxon historians. What happens if we take this same hypothesis to other people ? Why can in fact modern Jews (I mean as an ethne -besides religion-) claim they are descendants of ancient Israelites despite their diaspora and be well accepted ? Why can the modern Chinese be directly linked with Ancient China despite foreign invasions? Why can modern Indians shape their history long further back from King Ashoka despite foreign domination ? There you will find that after Fallmerayer's theory onwards (which is in fact our true discussion here) this whole subject about racial continuity or discontinuity of the Greeks is tainted with politics. Other contributions were surely made in Greece by different peoples (Germanic, Franks, Albanians, Slavs, Vlachs and even maybe Turks) which have shaped together with the strong local Hellenic compound the modern Greek identity but it doesn't erase continuity with the Ancient. Periptero (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Calm down! No one's disputing cultural continuity. There's no 'anglo-saxon' conspiracy. There's also controversy about Jewish, Chinese and very definitely about Indian ethnic origins. Greeks are no different from anyone else. The issue may be driven by politics in Greece and the Balkans but, anywhere else, quite frankly, no one cares that much. It's a subject of academic interest only. If anything, the 'anglo-saxon' default position is a Byronic assumption of continuity. DeCausa (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not think I take this personal. I just point out my statements just as you point yours. In an academic spirit I try to discuss with you. I perfectly understand your points, although I do not share them. When I refer to politics I do not mean XXI century politics, but XIX century or early XX century ones -those who in fact gave birth or not to modern nation-states-. Also, the term 'anglo-saxon' I used is maybe not the suitable one. Should I have stated 'germanic' instead? This way, in your words the 'anglo-saxon' default position is a Byronic assumption of continuity, just like to me the 'germanic' default position is a Fallmerayerian assumption of discontinuity. If what you ask is that both positions be present in the article, I agree.Periptero (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't think it's about pro- and anti-Fallmerayer. He's pretty irrelevant/outdated - only of interest from the point of view of historiography. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is just a reductionist way to name both antagonist perspectives Byronic (continuity) vs. Fallmerayerian (discontinuity). A little bit of fun is necessary.- Periptero (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Just not to sound repetetitive. I had expressed my "agreement" before, remember? ("If what you ask is that both positions be present in the article, I agree"). Thank you very much indeed. You give to my opinion an importance that I do not deserve, humbly.-Periptero (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Infobox images
There's a community discussion concerning whether there should or should not be images in infobox templates such as this one. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. Athenean (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Aristotelisonasis.jpg
The image File:Aristotelisonasis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
I think that the label "Religion" should not be present in the infobox. By stating that religion is Orthodox Christian contradicts having the images of Homer, Plato, Alexander and many others who were Olympic worshipers. In the text itself it is highlighted the religion item and it is enough. Plus, there are a tiny minority of Greeks who even at present are not Orthodox Christians. Periptero (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Edits by User:Pensionero
This user keeps removing the estimate for 3,000,000 Greek Americans (both logged in and as an IP ), which is sourced to the U.S. Department of State, claiming that it is "false information" and that "2 million Greeks that don't know they are Greeks don't exist" or something like that. Notwithstanding that this claim is ludicrous (of course Greek Americans "know" that they have Greek ancestry, duh!), the figure is sourced. The information is verifiable and there is some kind of fact checking at the State Department, so the figure meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS and should stay. Athenean (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit difficult to tell exactly what's going on just from the revert edit summaries, but it looks like a conflict of reliable sources. You say est. 3M from the State Dept. source. He says 1/1.5M from 2000 census and 2009 census bureau estimate. Is that right? I haven't looked at the sources myself, but, if so, isn't the answer to simply quote a range with a note explaining the source conflict? Or is that too easy? DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the pre-Pensionero version includes both the census and U.S. State Dept. figures, with a footnote clarifying that the State Dept. figure is an estimate for any Greek ancestry. Pensionero simply keeps removing the State figure, but I think as long as State Dept. meets WP:V, the removal is unwarranted. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see now. What I suggested is actually what you are defending. I think you are right of course. But having said that, I think instinctively the census information is going to be more accurate - the Census Bureau's main job is to generate this kind of data. Whereas the figure in the State Dept. Background Note is just a passing comment, and is not a major part of the note. Could esily be incorrect. But without a tertiary/secondary source discussing that point, it's not for us to make that judgment call. I think it needs to stay as it is until a third source clarifies the difference. 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Incidentally, pretty much all this user does is go around and reduce the population figures of ethnic groups other than his own, while inflating those of his own (Bulgarians). Athenean (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't impossible to there are 3 million Greeks in USA when census show results of 1.3 million, where these 3 million people declared that they are Greeks, isn't census the counting of the population? Pensionero (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Census doesn't catch everyone. Now, I've had quite enough of your POV-pushing, going around reducing the numbers of ethnic groups other than your own, while inflating those of your own. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That is unpossible if there were 1.3 million catched and 2 million not catched Greeks US 300 million population would be billion not catched on census? And stop with your manipulations telling the people that I am reducing the numbers of ethnic groups, you should give at least one more example besides this edit on Albanians, in which I didn't count the only ancestral Albanians in Turkey. Pensionero (talk) 16:38, 01 March 2011 (UTC)
The point is we just don't know why there's a difference between the two sources. There could be a good explanation. For example, the census is "self-declared" i.e it's up to the individual whether they want to declare Greek ancestry. Some may not have declared it. It's therefore not absolute fact. The number in the State dept. document may be derived from some sort of statistical extrapolation using immigration numbers, and may be more accurate. Or you could be right and it's just wrong. But we don't have enough information to know. That's why Misplaced Pages is based on reporting what WP:RS say and not WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Athenean, a census does not count everybody, any demographer would know that. Some census' only count country of birth, whilst others are outdated, or most likely people declare themselves as "White other". This user is also removing sourced information on Turkish topic's (e.g. Turks in Germany). They argue that newspaper articles are not reliable yet also remove academic sources (books and journals) as well- when they don't "like" the academic estimate of course. Articles should show a range of sources... there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area.Turco85 (Talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As "there cannot be just one estimate for a community in a certain geographic area" The estimate of census bureau still exist, it shows estimated number higher than the census 2000. These 3 million are not true and you know it, but however. Pensionero (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Greeks in the US
If the 1980 US census showed 959.856 Greeks and the 1990 US census 1.110.292 Greeks and the 2000 US census 1.153.295, how then does the US state department come up with 3 million Greek Americans? The US census has an ancestry,religion and language code. If you are not ticking the boxes it means you are not Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
"Related" groups, for the n-th time
I don't know when and how the "reated groups" field crept back into the infobox, but I'm pretty certain it should go out again. The "related" field is essentially deprecated (see background discussion here and here), because it almost invariably involves WP:OR in deciding on an arbitrary set of criteria of what to include. There simply is no clearly defined academic consensus concept about what "relationship" between ethnic groups even means. In the present case, we had a hodgepodge of groups, most of which aren't even "related to Greeks" in any possibly meaningful way, because they simply are Greeks themselves. The field was so chaotic that some editors felt the need of having a disclaimer to go with it . An extremely awkward solution, which just goes to demonstrate how untenable the whole concept was. The comment itself was a paradigm case of unsourced OR. Infoboxes should only be for information that is undoubtably factual. Anything that is in need of any kind of hedging, disclaimers, attribution or explanation should never be in an infobox. If the status of those groups is interesting, treat it in the article, in proper prose. Fut.Perf.☼07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: for the record, the field seems to have been re-introduced by an anon IP here , and then expanded by another anon here and by another newish contributor here, all of this without any discussion or even edit summaries. Fut.Perf.☼07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It is already the nth time. I wonder where was I the previous n-1 times. Regardless, I agree. Chalk one up on the dubious merits of infoboxes. I can't prove it, but there is something in the infobox make-up which promotes this type of WP:OR. Dr.K.08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Image of the lead
I suggest to use table for images, like that of Persians and Turkish people articles, so each name would be placed exactly under its corresponding image, and also it is far easier to edit... --Z15:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yet another new fashion in infoboxes. How about just getting rid of the whole gallery instead? It really serves no useful purpose, and pushes a lot of other infobox content that is a lot more useful far down the screen. If infoboxes are meant to "provide the an overview about the most basic facts about a topic at a single glance", then I really don't know how the current box does anything like it. Fut.Perf.☼16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's pretty unsophisticated. IMHO, these sort of galleries always makes a country (any country) look Ruritanian ("look at what we've done.We're not as insignificant as you thought"). I stress any country...I'm not particularly referring to this gallery. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the appropriate venue to raise this issue would be some sort of centralized discussion on the subject, e.g. over at the WikiProject Ethnic Groups or something like that, not this talkpage. But if I remember correctly, there was such a debate over there a while back and the result was inconclusive, with a majority of people in favor of keeping the galleries. Athenean (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but the wikiproject discussion has no central authority in deciding this. We could still form a local consensus about this article – and, if we do so, possibly set a positive example for others. Fut.Perf.☼18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
@Athenean: a strange comment. These galleries are not centrally imposed, despite their ubiquity. There is no reason why consensus on a particular article couldn't remove the gallery. In fact, what goes on in other articles is no argument for keeping it here per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Noone talked about centrally imposing these collages/galleries. We all know that Misplaced Pages is a fairly decentralised project. From Athenean's comment I gather that there is no general consensus against the use of these collages on a project-wide basis. There is no reason to assume that consensus for this article will be any different. As far as this collage being crap or not, the ubiquitous nature of these collages on so many articles shows that a lot of people like this construction and go to great lengths to produce it. Calling it crap may not be the most politic way of describing such widespread consensus and established practice on such a large scale. Δρ.Κ.22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Who called it crap? I said it was unsophisticated. (Or are you getting confused by the pre-existing shortcut title?) DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I read with dismay that Pyrros Dimas was placed in the infobox by a majority vote. This is very sad, it just proves that the majority of people in Greece/Europe/the world are illiterate boors, ready to testify that the most influential (and I'm choosing my words very carefully here) opera singer of all time is somehow less worthy of mention than an athlete of dubious pharmacological status, who distinguished himself by lifting very heavy metal objects over his head in a particular manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.183.199 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
...
if i'm greek, i'll burn my own home....
if i'm not greek, hehe ...hehe..run baby, no wait don't run....let's do this slowly...ur way...slow painful..end..u like that.....come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.98.51 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Ancient vs. Modern
Look Athenean, I hate making this personal but you don't own wikipedia. stop deleting sourced material. That is against wikipedia policy. It is very clear that ancient greeks and modern greeks are not the same thing - we wouldn't claim that ancient egyptians and modern egyptians are the same so stop pushing your POV. Ottomanist (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
