Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 5 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Greeks has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 30, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 11, 2009 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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... --Z 15:53, 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)

Ah, the confusion angle. The non-derogatory redirect is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You chose the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS instead. I wonder why. Δρ.Κ.  11:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"The confusion angle"! A pointless exchange. DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Callas vs Dimas

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)

Athenean was right to revert your addition. Regardless of what the sources say, your verbiage is wildly out of line with Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View and original research policies. I have not yet encountered an example of an edit that begins with "it should be noted that" that runs afoul of these two policies (not guidelines, but bright line, non-negotiable policies), and this one is no different. I haven't even bothered to look at the sources (although I will try to access them) because the wording is unquestionably inappropriate. Horologium (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the source does support the statement (which I can't comment on) then it could certainly find a place somewhere in the article, but not in the POV-pushing it was entered. Something more along the lines of "It has been suggested by X that..." would be far more appropriate, though WP:FRINGE should of course be kept in mind.Euchrid (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what happened to assuming good faith. I have provided sourced material which you can edit to make it sound more professional but you cannot delete it. Please respect some etiquette rules. Ottomanist (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Moreover, such 'verbiage' is a relic of the past i.e., that modern-Greeks are related to the Ancient Greeks. So provide sources and stop editing sourced material - Ottomanist (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but users who aren't involved in the talk - neither have they checked out the sources, are coming on undoing edits, what's going in, who's making them do this? - Ottomanist (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is negligible. You appear to have a belief that a modern nation needs to be pure with its ancestors not having mixed to claim descent from the antique race. Look at a fictional scenario: let's assume that a few thousand people in northern Finland begin to call themselves Thracians and revive the old language. You would absolutely justified in claiming these are not descended from the original Thracians; a break in the language, a different location and no continuity of any cultural trait. Hellenic culture and civilisation has been continuous for millennia AND on the very same territory. Yes people come and people go, Greeks from the past became Slavicised, Albanianised, Ottomanised, basically anything they wanted - outsiders married Greeks and bore children who called themselves Greek and so on, BUT this just means people have assimilated. It has never been the case that the language and culture was ever abandoned only to be picked up later by Illyrians and Slavic people. Greeks feature in every census taken throughout history and I doubt even the ancient Egyptians and Greeks were PURE in that their ancestors did not mix. I am sorry Ottomanist but this is a ridiculous declaration from you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also - as for a revival in nationalist spirit, well this is more to do with the way of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure a few people adopted Hellenic identity and maybe some Greeks chose something else; we know that the Orthodox-dominated powerful figures condemned non-Christian Greeks to abandoning their Greek past but this is far from supporting the claim that today's people are not "necessarily" descended from the ancient. What is "necessary"? People are or are not something. By identifying as German, you automatically inherit German history and everything attributed to it, it doesn't matter what your ancestors were. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've reported Ottomanist and the disruption he is causing at WP:AE. Not that it matters at this point, but for the record I even checked the sources he uses and they predictably state nothing of the kind (because no scholar worth his salt would write something like that). Athenean (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop claiming you've read the book:

Source 1 - Atsuko Ichijo, Gordana Uzelac, 'When Is the Nation?: Towards An Understanding of Theories Of Nationalism,' p. 182 explains very concisely:

"The western institutions transplanted into the newborn Greek state, although alien to the traditional Greek society of the early 19th century (…) official state discourse as well as that of intellecutals affirmed the importance of the 'ancient glorious past' in the conception of the modern Greek nation…the construction of Greek identity was completed through the integration of the byzantine period into the historic trajectory of the nation…the 'invention' of such a united and unique community was pursued throughout the 19th centiry through the state educational and cultural projects."

Source 2 - William Safran, 'The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion, and Politics,' p. 148, explains in more detail that:

"Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and relgions "

"Even though the 20th century construction of an exclusive ethno-national Greek identity legitimating the modern Greek state was relitively recent, religion, more specifically Eastern (Greek) Orthodoxy, was a contentious issue from the outset..."

"At the time of greek independence in 1829, the Greek nation was conceptualized as a resuscitated byzantium- a Christianized ottoman Empire - that would incorporate a multiplicity of religions, cultures and ethnicities. The premises of the Greek nation and of natioanlist ideology, which were contested among nationlist ideologues during the 18th century, were resolved only gradually…"

This is proof that you haven't even read the works you claim to have seen. I will revert the edit very soon unless you can bring another source to show that modern greeks are related to the ancient ones. Ottomanist (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist, if I see, in this article is a chapter 1.8 titled Modern (Greeks). There is a sentence as follows: ... While most Greeks today are descended from Greek-speaking Romioi (Roman) there are sizeable groups of ethnic Greeks who trace their descent to Aromanian-speaking Vlachs and Albanian-speaking Arvanites as well as Slavophones and Turkish-speaking Karamanlides.... You can add your text somewhere there. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more than wishful interpretation of the sources. They don't go anywhere near supporting the tendentious wording "It should be noted however, that modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks". The passages quoted make no statement regarding the relatedness of modern Greeks to ancient Greeks. In fact, ancient Greece is hardly even mentioned. The only mention of it that I see is that the ancient past plays an important role in Greek identity, i.e. the exact opposite of what Ottomanist is claiming. There is a section already discussing the relationship between ancient and modern, the last thing we need is tendentiously worded POV-pushing in the lede that is based on a false interpretation of sources. Athenean (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ottomanist and the quotes are talking about two different things. The quotes Ottomanist offers are clearly about the construction of the modern identity. That's old news (since Elie Kedourie and many others): throughout Europe in the 18th/19th century that was a process that was going on everywhere. But there can be a self-conscious construction of "national identity" whether or not there was any lack of "relatedness" to the past. There's nothing in those quotes which comments on that. Apart from that, the other problem with Ottomanist's edit is what is meant by "modern Greeks are not necessarily related to the ancient Greeks"? Genetically? Culturally? Linguistically? Geographically? It's actually pretty meaningless as it is. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the citation made fun reading and is certainly music to the ears of anti-Greeks, but it is selective and evidently contrived to bring down a modern nation on scanty negligible pretences. Assimilations have occurred all through history, no doubt even the antique nations had mixed with outsiders whilst many abandoned their own nation to join another. What the source fails to explain is how Hellenic culture, language and tradition survived all those millennia, was never abandoned in that it had to be revived, people had been identifying as Greek throughout the transitional period, and suddenly we have pseudo-Greeks? Really? Then which people walking this Earth have the "real" ancient Greek seed? The Ukrainians? Half of the homogenous Brazilians? If so how did they end up where they did and how did these "new" non-Greeks successfully replace the old and all without a break in Hellenic identity? The claim is absurd. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't read the quotes as "anti-Greek" or could be used to support anything "anti-Greek". I think you may be reading too much into them. The same process was going on everywhere at that time. The quotes are focusing on the concept of the "nation-state" (any nation state) and the underlying ideology supporting the nation-state being new inventions - which they were. What was going on in Greece was "normal"! DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It was normal, revival of nationalism was the trend in the 19th century. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Read again "Despite the persistent issue of religion, in light of the initialy territorially based construction of the greek nation, which encompased diverse ethnicities, cultures and religions.." - Greek nationalism was initially territorial - now we have the claim that everyone is 'Greek' which is absolute nonsense according to all scholars of nationalism (since Greek is taken as a sort of model of how a nation is constructed using myths, not based on 'true' ethnic continuity).

• There was no 'revival' of nationalism in the 19th century since nationalism originates in that century (some users are so missing the point it's unbelievable).
• This is historical fact which all modern scholars note. Again, this is not a place to publicise state propaganda. - Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Greek articles
• Top-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• GA-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles