Talk:Greeks

• Archive1
• Archive2

Greeks

The very opening of the article is lacking objectivity. "are a nation and ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC until the present day."

There is no actual evidence that Ionian landmass was populated by tribes specifically named Greek as early as 17th century BCE. This name refers to Biothian migrants to the Apennine peninsular.

Further if the name is applied to all populations using related language, then it can not refer to them as either a 'nation' or an 'ethnic group'. Greece was not a nation until 19th century CE, and can be at best referred to in its ancient history as a confederation, often of city-states, or tribal group.

The Ionian landmass was not known as Greece throughout its history, so it can not be said that there was a continuity of population of what is a current political entity. It also fails to attest of other areas populated by users of Ionian language outside of what is now Greece.

The immediate next part of the article conveniently ignores six centuries of history! "Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which coincided to a very large extent with the borders of the Byzantine Empire of the late 11th century and the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world." What does uniform distribution of population mean in demographic terms?! What about Southern part of the Apennine Peninsula? The Byzantine Empire was not solely composed of Greek speakers as it is implied. From the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire to disintegration of the Ottoman Empire that replaced it, the Greek speakers were a part of a larger entity. It seems this was an influential and significant part of history of the Modern Greek nation, and needs to be included in the article if only from objectivity point of view. Lastly, Greeks did not colonize the ancient world. Various tribes who shared similar language settled in different parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, and predominantly in the Ionian region. Because of this fact, their view of the ancient world was a very limited one, confined to immediate surroundings. The phrasing should be that tribal colonization took place in the Eastern Mediterranean to avoid Greek-centrism. --Mrg3105 09:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greeks

Look, I don't want to dig this issue more than it should be done, but the links to the claim that 350000 Pontian Greeks were killed DON'T WORK.. Pls note...

This is a very serious claim to make, and unless someone can back this up, I will add 'according to unverifiable sources, it has been alleged that...' Baristarim 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See [1] and open the PDF. It says that from 1916 to 1923, about 350,000 Pontians disappeared through massacres, persecution and death marches. --Telex 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, I couldn't open the PDF version, so I am reading the text version... Let me have a look... Baristarim 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this? [2]. does it work now? If not, let me know, and i will copy paste the text here or in your talk page (where u prefer). --Hectorian 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a document submitted to the UN by some NGO. It would be better if we could get a solid scholarly reference instead. Unfortunately, a quick check at Google Scholar for "Pontian Greek genocide" finds nothing; "Pontian genocide" finds only an incidental mention of the commemoration day. Surely we can do better? --Macrakis 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of Greeks

The article currently says:

Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which coincided to a very large extent with the borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century and the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world.

This description excludes the large populations of Greeks in Crete, Cyprus, the Aegean and Ionian islands, and Alexandria. On the other hand, the "areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world" also included most of Sicily (and depending on your definitions also southern Italy and southern Gaul) and the "borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century" (which varied quite a lot, by the way) included much of modern Romania, Bulgaria, and (former) Yugoslavia. Though there were Greeks there in the early 20th century, they were much sparser than in the core areas. I am not sure how to write this so that it doesn't get bogged down in details. Thoughts? --Macrakis 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct note indeed, but besides the point of the paragraph. The following sentence may clarify the 'need' for those particular areas to be mentioned:

In the aftermath of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) in 1923, a large-scale population exchange between Greece and Turkey transferred and confined ethnic Greeks almost entirely into the borders of the modern Greek state, that is, in areas where groups of Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans first established themselves about 1500 BC.

Unless anyone feels strongly about removing the whole thing, I propose the following wording for the first part:

Until the early 20th century, Greeks were uniformly distributed between the Greek peninsula, the western coast of Asia Minor, Pontus and Constantinople, regions which among others coincided to the larger part of the frequently shifting borders of the Byzantine Empire of the 11th century and to most of the areas of Greek colonization in the ancient world.

I am not very happy with the English, but this should solve your concerns. Any other proposal? Any improvement on my text? •NikoSilver• 20:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there ist the classic figure of a Greek "Yiayia" posing on a Wikipedia page, as it does in tourist shops accross Greece. Is this really the type of picture we are promoting and showing as the face of a typical Greek ? The least you can do is post the picture of some younger, more typical (and not stereotypical) Greeks, male and female. Ante geia !

100% agree with the anon! Plus the caption is kinda macabre...•NikoSilver• 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"confined ethnic Greeks almost entirely into the borders of the modern Greek state, that is, in areas where groups of Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans first established themselves about 1500 BC." This requires sources and clarification. Firstly there is considerable scientific ambiguity about earliest arrival of 'Greek' speakers in the Eastern Mediterranean. Arrival prior to 13th century is a minority view based on extrapolation rahter then archeology. However when the 'Greek' speakers did arrive in the area, they most certainly did not FIRST establish themselves in the confines of the current borders of the modern Greek nation. They FIRST established themselves at the point where they encountered least resistance to settlement. --Mrg3105 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose - Withdrawn

Greeks → Greek people — I'm going to do THIS one step at a time (and can move on to others afterward), but we need consistency for the ethnic group article titles. On one hand, you have Japanese people, English people, French people, Czech people, Spanish people, Swedish people, etc. And on the other, you have Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Germans, etc. Considering it is impossible to change many in the first set ("Japaneses"?), but it is always possible to change those in the second and append "people", it's easiest if we start moving them all to the "_____ people" format. Bssc81 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support as per my reasons above. Withdrawn. -Bssc81 01:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The "X people" format is only useful for disambiguation. "Japanese" has no overt plural, hence "Japanese" alone needs the disambiguation tags "...people" and "...language". "Greeks" is unambiguous. Naming policy is to use the shortest unambiguous common term possible. Uniformity across articles is immaterial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. See below. --Serge 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Fut.Perf. and Serge. Also, "Greek people" is rather difficult to use in a sentence for articles directed to Greeks. •NikoSilver• 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Big oppose: see Armenians, Bulgarians, Russians, Albanians, Georgians etc. Future Perfect, Serge and Niko have covered my objections. I do find the "people" formulation rather childish and think it should be avoided unless it's absolutely necessary (for disambiguation purposes).--Tekleni 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above. Hectorian 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, plus I don't see a huge need to enforce consistency in this area. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per Future perfect at sunrise. Miskin 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Macrakis 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect. Kafziel ^Talk 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all berdzeni above. "The foo people" format should be used only when there is no plural of "foo" (or is seldom used) and we should put that explicitly in the NC, to stop this "one step at a time" attempt. Consistency is good, but forceful consistency is bad. "Greek people" is simply not common English. Duja 13:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - FPS has already said it all.--Aldux 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Use the most common name

I'm opposing on the grounds that being consistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming principles like using the most common name is a higher priority than being consistent within a group of articles that have a common characteristic (in this case, ethnic people). Each article should be evaluated independently and the name most commonly used to refer to that article's subject should be given priority. Only if there is an ambiguity issue do we start looking at alternatives. By the way, the google test results are:

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for Greeks 
Results 1 - 10 of about 316,000 for "Greek people"

--Serge 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough - then perhaps we need to be moving those that CAN move from the first group (Swedes, Czechs, etc.) --Bssc81 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would support that.

Results 1 - 20 of about 110,000 English pages for "czech people"
Results 1 - 20 of about 2,040,000 English pages for "czechs".
Results 1 - 20 of about 190,000 English pages for "swedish people".
Results 1 - 20 of about 3,070,000 English pages for swedes

• • • --Serge 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Language break?

The current section on "Modern and ancient Greeks" reads, "The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is the language, which has enjoyed a continuous tradition at least from the 7th century BC to the present day. There has been no break such as the one between Latin and the modern Romance languages, and the only other language which enjoys comparable continuity of tradition is Chinese." I'm changing this because there is no big break between Latin and, say, Italian, just an evolution -- very similar to the cotinuous evolution from ancient Greek to contemporary Greek. Jackmitchell 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian is not considered as a modern form of Latin. Sthenel 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this doesn't matter but

How genetically related are modern Greeks to ancient Greeks?

Well, there is no definite answer to a percentage of "genetic Greekness". There are, however, emphatically discredited studies for the exact lack of this genetic Greekness (see Fallmerayer, and Arnaiz-Villena). Any answer on that matter would be original research for now. However, we can safely assume that this genetic relationship is much closer to any of the non-neighbouring (or even neighbouring) peoples. •NikoSilver• 10:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The genetic relation of modern Greeks, and the people we refer to as ancient Greeks, if such a relationship exists, is impossible to prove either way. Personally, I find it immaterial, and see modern Greece's connection to ancient Greece in terms of the same language (confirmed by Britannica) and certain cultural elements. Interestingly, elements of ancient Greek paganism can be found in modern Greek folklore, most notable, the tendency to refer to the Christian concept of Hell as Hades. Of course, sceptics would attribute that to an artificial "grecianization" - some (mostly FYROM nationalistic) claim that the Greek language became extinct at some point and than modern Greek was revived and imposed on the population of modern Greece (who were originally a mixture of Vlachs, Slavs, Albanians etc). Such questions are loaded with political implications, but we can rest assured that the Greek language never became extinct (Britannica again - as if I need to cite a source).--Tekleni 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Greeks since ancient times were always in the majority in the Greek peninsula, that the area was never deserted and that no other population group (conquers or settlers) ever outnumbered them. so, any such theory is just unhistoric and politically motivated... Hectorian 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know that ancient Greeks were an indo-european people and should fall under one of the haplogroups that would have been prevelant among the inhabitants of europe at the time...which probably excludes E and J from middle easterners. There are many studies that you can look at that show the Y chromosome and mitochondial diversity in europe, this being one > http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf. That's how I come up with my personal conclusion of, they are sorta related with significant Turkish or Arab influence on the gene pool. I'm still struggling to understand how that happened if it did though because of the language, culture, and religious barriers...plus the Greeks and Turks have generally hate each other even today. - Clown

If your basis is that Greeks or ancient Greeks for that matter are supposed to fall under the same haplogroups as most inhabitants of Europe because of their indo-european linguistical heritage, then I suggest you do some more serious research. Do some study on the pre-Greek populations in Greece (e.g.Pelasgians) and you will find many answers as to why Greeks partly fall under haplogroups E and J.(CG)

You know the Turks are not homogenous at all unless it is of mongloid ancestry, They had an empire that took boys and made them convert to islamd and become the janissery, and the girls in the harem, a turk doesn't know what he is because of that, I do agree that there is a small percentage of turk and arab blood but it is very little, I'm from corfu i know my blood isn't tainted by turks.

Image

The article is about Greeks as nation or ethnic group. Pericles and Alexander didn't belong to this nation or group. They were "ancient Greek" and "ancient Macedonian". These categories have nothing in common with late medieval or modern Greeks or Macedonians. It would be reasoanble to change the image for a new one with portraits of ethnic Greeks. --Alex Kov 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you before waiting for an explanation here. But I do think this is just bizarre. As the article states, Greeks "are a nation and ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC until the present day." You might disagree with some of the wording, but I think it correctly reflects the consensus both in scholarship and in general perception that there is something fundamentally continuous about this group through the ages. Even if you were to argue that modern Greeks and ancient Greeks have significantly different identities, this article has chosen to treat them all together. Pericles not a "Greek"? Come on... Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pericles is "Ancient Greek" but not the ethnic Greek. Personaly I dont like the image of Alexander to be in the row of Greeks. He was "ancient Macedonian". Probably you know that articles like this are about "ethnic groups". Thus no need to insert Pericles and Alexander into this Ethnic group. Its like putting Ceaser, Joan of Arc, John Paul II into the article "European ethnic group". Its ridiculous. Ancient Greece was not an ethnical or national body but socio-cultural. So please, create article "Ancient Greeks" as ethnic group and insert images of Per and Alex there. But in this article they are inappropriate.--Alex Kov 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to do a massive rewrite of the whole set of Greek-related articles if you wanted to split up coverage in this way. Read this article, it covers both ancient and modern Greeks. You could try to split it up along the lines you say, but I think you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to garner consensus for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See my reply here.--Tekleni 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What the f**k are you saying??? Of course Pericles was an ethnic Greek like Joan of Arc was French. The ancient Greece was a nation, not a "socio-cultural body". There were different cities, but it was a nation. You mean that Alexander and Pericles weren't Greeks???? Ancient Macedonians were ancient Greeks (like ancient Athenians were ancient Greeks), and ancient Greeks were Greeks. You donn't have to be a genious to understand that ancient Greeks were Greeks! It's obvious. Mitsos 09:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation is a construct of the past 200 years. Ethnic group is not - if we knew of a Greek speaking Neanderthal (anachronism) and had a PD picture of him, we could use that.--Tekleni 10:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex you have a personal point of view which does not agree with neither the consensus of scholars nor the perception of people today. In my opinion you have a personal agenda on the subject, for example you can't accept that the world regards "Macedonian" and "ancient Macedonian" as two completely different ethnic and cultural identities, therefore you think that the same should be done with Greeks. Read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR to find out why this is not possible. Miskin 11:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin you misunderstood me. Franks and French are not the same, Romans and Italians too. Romanians are not Romans and Russians have very slight relation to Kievan Rus. German Angls and Saxons werent part of German nation of the 19-20 centuries. My point is that its too risky to see the nations or ethnic groups of the present in the societies and states of the past. My point of view is not just personal. You should read some books of Smith or Anderson on the Nationalism and the origins of the ethnic groups. Ancient Greece was a multyethnic entity and shouldnt be monopolized by nowadays Greeks. I asume that majority of modern Greeks has direct relation to the peoples of Ancient Greece, but not all of that peoples were Greeks in modern sence of this word. Therefore Macedonians or Thracians of the Ancient world culturaly belonged to "Greece" but they werent "ethnic Greeks" in those days nor can be seen as one today. --Alex Kov 16:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the ancient Macedonians and Thracians were ancient Greeks. They spoke Greek. Ancient Greeks were an ethnic group, right? You are saying that Greeks and ancient Greeks are different ethnic groups. That's wrong. The Franks were not French, but the people who lived in France during the period of Joan of Arc, were French. My point is: The people who lived in Greece 5000 years ago were not Greeks (they were Pelasgians, I think), but the people who lived in Greece 3000 years ago, like Pericles, were Greeks. Modern Greek are very similar to ancient Greek, while French has nothing to do with Frankish. The Greeks are one nation (or ethnic group, if you prefer) with a history that goes back 4000 ago. Mitsos 08:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to start our struggle against "Greek monopoly" by removing the photos of Pericles and Alexander from this article, and you expect us to believe that this is not your personal view? What is it then, the view of some sort of anti-Greek-monopoly cult organisation? Well guess what, Greeks do not also monopolise ancient Greece but also the Byzantine Empire. Except Macedonia, none of Greek history was ever claimed by anyone else, so I don't know what you mean by 'monopoly'. But how come you're not concerned by, for instance, Turkey's claims on the history of all Turkic peoples? Is it maybe because nobody gives a toss about the history of Turks? How come there aren't any scholars writing essays on how the Turks and Armenians of today would compare to the Turks and Armenians of the old? Yet there's people like you who do care to question and compare the continuity of Greeks. This has nothing to do with neutrality and scholarship, this has to do with the utility of ancient Greece and its impact on Western civilisations. Despite what you say, there is a majority of neutral and credible historians who treat Greek history as a sole, continuous entity, which is of course sub-divided to different civilisations/cultures [3]. Miskin 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO! So true! The english have always been against greece and so have the nords.

There was a lot of debate (/myth) in antiquity about where the various ancient Greek populations came from - the Athenians claimed to be indigenous, but more or less everybody else had a story about how their Founder Hero brought them over from somewhere else (eg. Kadmos came from Egyptian Thebes and founded Boeotian Thebes). So the ancients were themselves aware of that what we'd call a plurality of races had gone into making up "the Greeks." That said, of course "the Greeks" were a nation in antiquity -- the self-identified as such, on linguistic and cultural grounds. So by the ancients' own standards, which were language- and culture-based, the modern Greeks are continuers of the ancient Greeks. The problem seems to me to be that the modern Greeks stake an exclusive claim in that heritage, which only makes them look foolish. There's enough richness in ancient Greek culture to make us all proud heirs of Pericles. Jackmitchell 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex: trying to get Greeks to understand Ancient Greece is like trying to explain to a monkey why it is not a human. You are wasting your time, basically. --62.103.147.55 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I always thought we were below 'monkey'. •NikoSilver• 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know whather monkeys are above or below humans, nor do I know where Greeks fit into that. What is clear is that monkeys and humans are significantly different, although with commmon roots. Similarly, modern Greeks are not ancient Greeks and it is nothing other than political propaganda to pretend otherwise. The leading writers of the last 50 years have called that nationalism -- as mentioned above, Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson. There are also numerous Greek academics who concur: only idiots with basic school level education argue about these things. --62.103.147.55 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last remark answers it for me. Miskin 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes let everyone share in the glory that is Greece, Yea like the movie Troy where they had mexicans play greek soldiers, or how about Alexander with those thick english, british, scottish accents, Epamiondies was the first son of Greece and Alexander was its last. Why do Greeks Try to have a stake in their past, Lets see why, They were sacked in 1204 by the so called crusaders , than the Eastern Roman Empire falls and they have to subjugated under the turkish yoke for 400 years while the rest of europe is going through their rebirth based on all that was Anicent Greece, started by Greeks fleeing to Italy, so yeah I would think Greeks would be somewhat close to their past no? When you have Slavs saying that there Macedonians, Some guy writing afrocentric crap about the Greeks, or the fact that Constanopole is under turkish rule still which is the equivalent of Rome to the Catholics , that the english still have the marbles, or since the Germans loved Ancient Greece so much trying to make the greeks in late ninteeth century speek attic greek, and than in the WW2 to not feel bad the Germans were told these aren't the real greeks, even though Hitler said "there must be some of that old blood in them" after they beat the italians, yea I would think Greeks must hold dearly to their past , that little fucking country that was built of city states contributed more to the world than anybody else, and the inhabitants of today are greek like Alexander and Pericles was, I swear I'm going to start using barbarians for every non greek

Grek name

There must be an article, or information in this article about "Grek" name and why it was stopped being used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utku a (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 November 2006.

I've never heard of it, but why isn't that covered under the GR (Graekoi) root? •NikoSilver• 14:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Greek" is a purely Latin word for the Greeks, who have always been called "Hellenes" in Greek; "Romaioi" is a political term, used to refer to the Greeks when there were no Romans left who weren't Hellenes. Jackmitchell 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Greeks and other ethnic groups in Wikipedia

A lot of discussion is goining on about putting ancient and modern Greeks into the same article. Well, it's no better at the Egyptians' corner. They are presented as one continuous, homogenous nation, with pictures of ancient priests and Naguib Mahfouz (among others) as their representatives. Same with the Berbers. I think that, since the people living in Greece at the present are called Greeks, it is enough to have the article titled "Greeks" and sunsequently differentiate between ancient Greeks, Byzantine Greeks, Greeks under Ottoman and Venetian rule, Greeks after the founding of the modern Greek state, as it's done now. It's perfectly misleading. Or we could split all these groups in to little articles and then add a disambiguation page. Someone mentioned monkeys. I suppose that in an article titled "Primates" one can put, or mention both humans and apes. So, as long as there is a clear distinction between ancient and modern Greeks within the article, this shouldn't be a problem. There is also an article on the Greek language as a whole, mabe we should delete that too ?

U forgot to suggest other articles for deletion or split as well, e.g. Greek Orthodox, Greece, Greek dialects, Greek philosophy, Greek literature,... U know, all those related to those Greeks... Hectorian 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said that nationalism (and its spurious claims of ethnic continuity over millenia) is specific to Greeks. This does not make its presence in an encylopedia article acceptable, however. What is needed here is a clear recognition that the concept of Greekness in ancient times was not that of the twentieth century. Ancient Greeks co-existed (as did Byzantine and Ottoman Greeks) with many other ethnic groups, in complex societies. Ancient Greeks belonged to a multiplicity of groups, including village,occupational groups, a local community like the city-state or polis, and also the ethnos. These often conflicted, and the ethnos did not take priority. In marked contrast, modern Greekness is predicated upon a fictional ethnos, which is ideologically bloodline but in reality is equally based on religion, had little to do with language in the 19th century [which is bizarre for any ethnos], and became a nationalistic driving force with the fated Megali Idea. Other forms of social identity, which had existed in ancient times and also continued throughout the Ottoman period, were destroyed in the process of creating the modern Greek nation state. This nationalism is central, both as a characteristic of modern Greek identity and also as a defining difference with ancient Greeks.--62.103.147.55 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, I object very strongly to most of the content of the first two paragraphs of the page, which are misleading and even incorrect. The "facts" included there are contradicted by all serious Greek scholarship on the ethnic composition of 19th C Greece,the events around the exchange of populations etc. and the assimilation of the residents on Greek territory into one homogeneous "ethnic group". Religion mattered more than language, and this situation prevails even today to some extent [although is beginning to disappear].

Religion mattered because that was all they had during the turkish yoke, beginning aroudn 10th century Greek Nationalism started to move away from this but we all know what happened, Do you understand they were slaves for 400 years, Can't you guys understand that

Fake population figures

NikoSilver: if you want to give a figure for the Greek population, there has to be a reference. Nationalism should not extend to faking the figures, even though Greece has a long history of doing so.I have put a link for the total estimated population, from which you need to remove at least 700,000 non-Greeks. This comes to about 10m Greeks in Greece for 2005.

Look at the census and the population figures. Greece has many immigrants, but they are not included in the census. so, there is no "fake figures". maybe u are faking the population figures... If u want, place the population number of all Greece at 12+ million (which is the reality) and say that 700,000-1 million are foreign immigrants. but do not remove 1 million from the number of the Greeks in Greece. Hectorian 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, the Census says that the total population of Greece was 11 million in 2001, of which 762,000 were not greeks. Who told you that there are no immigrants in the Census??? This is laughable. Kindly correct the figure, which is basically 10,3m Greeks in 2001, with zero population growth since... so is more like 10,2 for 2006....

It is not about a supposed 2006 census, but about a 2006 estimation. as for the number of the immigrants in Greece and those with a greek citizanship counted in the census, better read how many 'homogeneis' from albania and the former USSR came here. i suppose u would not include them in the non-Greeks... Hectorian 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The only correct data are from a Census, as the estimation is exactly that. The link I gave was to an estimation, and you removed it. Where is a proper link or reference to your figure? And the figure for allogeneis in 2001 is 762,000: homogeneis are additional to that. In other words, your figure is wrong. Please correct the false figure that you have inserted on the page.--62.103.147.55 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry kids, but no one in their right minds can claim that 100% of the population of Greece are Greeks. I added The World Factbook's estimate of 98% of the total population based on a July 2006 estimate. You're welcome :-) --Euthymios 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Euthymio, it is a little better than the previous nonsense. But the total population estimates of Greece for 2006 are all widely varying, quite simply because Greeks as an ethnic group have negative population growth. Any population growth since 2001 is ENTIRELY due to immigration, and since the greek state has no idea how many [if any] of those immigrants since 2001 might be homogeneis, the whole thing is ridiculous. YOu have to use the census data, or some other actual count instead of foolish estimates.

Hearing such silly things makes me wonder if you even know what the Greek immigration law is like. The only foolish thing I see here is your 2-euro chauvinism. Get a username, make some real contributions to wikipedia, and come back to deal with the (+-)0.3% accuracy of population figures later. Miskin 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhpas Mr Miskin you would care to explain to the world what is incorrect with the statements made above? I suggest you read some population data, including the large number of publications with my name on them. I also suggest that you follow the Wikipedia rules and provide proper references to everything put on the page, instead of the school-level "common sense" that seems to prevail on the Greek pages.

Anon, even the source you are citing says Greece is 98% Greek [4].--Euthymios 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Euthymio. The quality of data online for Greek population is terrible. I suggest either the UN POpulation Division data for 2005, which are reasonable estimates, or more correctly the 2001 Census. The accuracy of data on Greek population is not +/- 0.3% as claimed by Miskin, but more like +/-8%. This is clearly a serious problem. The figure of 98% of Greece as orthodox Greek is a piece of nonsense from 20 years ago, calculated from taftotita applications. Effectively, it is meaningless (as indeed it was 20 years ago) and simply reflects the political propaganda of the Greek state, which claims that the only minority is the Thraki minority.

Listen, I don't believe that Greece is 98% Greek. I remember reading somewhere something about official statistics finding that 10% of the population of Greece do not hold Greek citizenship (i.e. are immigrants). Perhaps the 98% figure pertains to the remaining 90% which would be something like 88.2% of the total population. I think all this speculation qualifies as original research though. What is interesting is the question of "what are the Roma (Gypsies/Τσιγγάνοι)?" According to the Greek government again, they number about 200,000 - are they included in the ethnic Greeks figure? According to official statistics again (1991 census), the Thrace minority is 0.98% of the total population at that time (about 28.8% of the total population of Thace at that time). I think we should just stick with The World Factbook's estimate and avoid all the speculation.--Euthymios 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

About 7% in the census are not Greeks or homogeneis, and about 8.5% in other data [link posted to your page]. It might be at 10% total with illegal immigrants, but nobody knows...THe Roma are counted as Greeks, and in fact they themselves insist on it. I do not know of any official data on the number of Roma, but perhaps there are some government estimates. So the 2% is only Greek Muslims [not only in Thraki, actually]. There are no official data on the number of Muslims, other than the 1951 Census. But I really advise, for most countries, against using the CIA factbook: it is full of serious mistakes.--62.103.147.55 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See the article on the Muslim minority of Greece - the source cited is the Greek Ministry for Foreign Affairs and they speak of a figure from a 1991 census (the same figure I mention above). The size of the Muslims of Thrace still there seems to have decreased since the mass revocations of citizenship (of Greek citizens abroad).--Euthymios 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The "8.8% Foreigners" doesn't seem very neutral, it's looks kind of discriminative, as in "8.8% barbarians" or something. Why is the 11 million figure provided in an article that is about Greeks? It looks as if there's 11 million Greeks with an 8% of foreign Greeks, it doesn't make any sense. This information should go to Demographics of Greece or Greece, and restore the raw data here, i.e. the 92% of 11M. Miskin 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I've noticed that there are different aspects about polytheist Greeks and if their religion should be included in the infobox. I thought that the main religions of a nation should be mentioned in the infobox but there are so many in this one, especially for a nation in which Christian Orthodoxy is by far (the census of 2001 talks about 98%) the dominant faith. Besides, I know some people who are Jehovah's Witnesses...maybe we should mention them too. This is ridiculous. - Sthenel 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is complete bull. A reconstructed movement (In my opinion a cult) with a mere 2,000 followers (according to the US State Department, although contradicted by other sources of a questionable nature) cannot be representative of Greeks. Muslims and Roman Catholics have lived in Greece for centuries, as have Jews (many of whom are Greek-identifying according according to the Greek Helsinki Monitor) except Jews number about 6,000, too small to include. Mainstream historical religions with a significant following only please.--Domitius 00:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to an MSNBC video clip there are 100,000 of them. I don't think there is any fair way to say that MSNBC is noh-NPOV. IF they 100,000 people that means Greece has more polytheists than Muslims. If Muslims are there, by numerical fairness the polytheists must be there. Thegreyanomaly 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also you should know that the polytheists did not choose to convert. Theodosius I and his successors all banned all non-Christian religions. If they worshipped the gods, they would have been killed. That is how Europe was converted. According a documentary I Still Worship Zeus, there are some Greeks to have claim to have been hiding there religion successfully for all this time. Its not exactly reconstruction. Thegreyanomaly 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not 100,000. And I don't know what you are going to prove by adding this. It's not among the main religions of Greeks around the world. - Sthenel 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But how can you prove otherwise. I have sources for 40k ([[5]] [[6]]) and MSNBC which says 100k. Around 2,500 attended the Prometheia event in March 2005. [[7]]. "Greek Society of the Attic Friends" has 40,000 members hence atleast 40,000 polytheists. There are more of them then Protestants. I am waiting for Jkelly to respond to my message before I revert. Thegreyanomaly 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, hardly representative of Greek society; they even acknowledge that themselves [8]. Anyway, when you add Neo-druidism to English people and make is stick (hard as it will be intensely contested), then you'll have a stronger case for adding this here.--Domitius 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish them well in their campaign for religious freedom. However, nothing we've seen yet is a WP:Reliable source for the 40,000 (or higher) figure. The two Web pages you cite report say that the "Greek Society of the Attic Friends claim 40,000 members" (my emphasis) -- that it, it is reporting on their own claim, not estimating a figure independently. I have not seen the MSNBC report; does it do anything more than report this claim? Is there any neutral, third-party evidence? I haven't seen it. --Macrakis 18:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Homogeneis

Could someone please add content on the legal definition of "homogeneis". This is obviously a critical term in the definition of Greekness, but it is not discussed in the current article. The dictionary definition ("people of Greek origin living abroad") doesn't help, since it doesn't define "Greek origin". Is there anyone here who actually knows the ins and outs of the legal definition? --Macrakis 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Complex business. As far as I can tell, it's arbitrarily decided on a case by case basis depending on what proof the applicant has (or how much cash they have to bribe their way in - it does happen). You can't expect someone who has lived through the militantly communist Soviet Union, let alone Albania, to have many documents to prove it. I'm looking into it though.--Domitius 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The legal definition depends on which legal body you are applying to for either recognition, aid, or support. The concept of the homogeneity of the Greeks we know to have existed in the times prior to Plato, deriving from the concept of other or barbaros. Thus, this is, essentially, a linguisting distinction - which squares rather well with the question of law or legal standing. James Seneca 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

opening para 17th C

Has the 17th C date been discussed? Why is it set at 17th and not 23rd C (the last obvious - but still partial - discontinuity in the archaeological record)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5telios (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Sorry - pressed save too fast. I just wanted to add thath no mention is made of the 17th C date later in the article. --5telios 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus on the date. Probably the most commonly used date is 1900 BCE (EH/MH boundary, arrival of Minyan ware), but 1600 BCE (MH/LH, arrival of Mycenaean material culture) is also cited. A few scholars support 1200 (LH IIIb/c, though that is not consistent with the decipherment of Linear B), and some support 2100 (EH II/III). These positions are summarized in:

René A. van Royen, Benjamin H. Isaac, Arrival of the Greeks: The Evidence of the Settlements, 1979

Robert Drews, The Coming of the Greeks. Princeton University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-691-02951-2

I have used these sources not for their own positions on the matter, but for their reports on the literature. If you have better and/or more recent sources, let's talk about them! --Macrakis 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am keen on the EHII/EHIII transition although this is problematic in that it does not cover every site (many places exhibit continuation of EHII style). I do not have sources handy, and doubt I will do soon (moving house), but when I have got things together, I will come back to this with sources. I realise that there is no consensus but also believe that this is in no small part due to blinkers (as evidenced by the 1200 date). My question was mainly out of curiostiy as to why the MH/LH transition was chosen. --5telios 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The core WP philosophy is WP:NPOV, which says we report all the noteworthy positions, and mention how well-supported they are by relevant experts, whether we agree with them or not. --Macrakis 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on Φραγκοι

I noticed Sthenel removed the note added by 75.72.163.138 where he/she mentioned that the term Φραγκοι (Franks) is used in Greek to refer to Roman Catholics. This term is actually an interesting aspect of Greek culture and history (i.e. what it says about their self-identity) and I curious why it was removed (the edit had no comment). --Mcorazao 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definition in intro

Let me preface my statement by saying that I know it is always difficult to precisely define any ethnic group ...

I think the intro, despite some efforts to clarify, still is unclear about what a "Greek" is. Granted this is somewhat clarified in the next section but I believe that the intro should stand on its own. The intro implicitly talks about multiple historical groups suggesting that they are all part of one identifiable ethnic group which is, at best, misleading. If you look through history and compare groups that

• Spoke one of the Greek dialects.
• Are ethnically descended from those who spoke the original Greek dialects.
• Have called themselves "Greek".
• Many other definitions.

you get very different sets of people (major reasons being the assimilation of "non-Greeks" into the Macedonian and Roman Empires as well as the reassimilation of "Greeks" into other cultures). So, for example, talking about historical "Greek colonies" and the "Greek" ethnic group in Greece today is misleading in that I don't know that one can really say that these groups clearly represent a common lineage (some Greeks might consider such statements heresy but, national pride aside, this is reality).

If this article is intended to cover all of these different definitions I would suggest that it is worthwhile to "be clear that it's not clear." That is, the intro should clarify up front that it is not talking about a single unified ethnic group that has existed since classical times but rather is generally talking about various groups that have existed historically with the common thread that they spoke Greek (or have ancestors who did). Note that a weak argument can be made for "cultural continuity" but it is not clear that the modern Greek nation has any more cultural connection to the ancient Greeks than a lot of other groups (granted the modern Greeks have deliberately tried to "revive" a lot of ancient Greek culture but that represents immitation, not continuity).

Am I off base?

--Mcorazao 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are of base! (just joking!) The article refers to a nation and an ethnic group that existed and still exists. “The Greeks (Greek: Έλληνες— Hellenes) are a nation and an ethnic group, who have populated Greece from the 17th century BC to the present day.” Would you prefer the article to refer to:“various people who happened to speak Greek through the centuries- miraculously- in the regions of the Greek world?“ If you doubt that the modern Greeks have any connection with the Byzantine Greeks or the Hellenistic Greeks or the ancient Greeks please read the part of the article “Modern and ancient Greeks” and the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks which is exelent! Thank you for your time. Seleukosa 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover that article is a featured one, as decided by the wikipedia community. Hectorian 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a woman?

Maybe we should add a woman's picture... Does anybody agree? (I propose Cleopatra in case of acceptance)

Exept Cleopatra was a Pharoh of Egypt and is in no way linked to Greece or Ancient Greece :/.--DerMeister 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Why don't you read Cleopatra - why not just the intro? On the original question, I would disagree on the grounds that representations are rare and I am not sure there is a representation acknowledged to be really her. --5telios 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Related groups infobox section

There's currently a discussion going on about the future of the 'related groups' section of the infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Any input would be appreciated.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed here before. Actually, this is exactly the case that triggered the decision to make the field optional a couple of months ago. This article certainly doesn't want it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Article currently says:

However, the Greeks are also defined as a genos (γένος in Greek) in the sense that they also share a common ancestry.

As usual, the passive voice here ("are also defined") leaves open the question of who defines the Greeks this way. I can easily believe that some Greeks subscribe to the notion of a (fictive) common ancestry, but (a) we need to find evidence for this belief and (b) we need to contextualize it. --Macrakis 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

????????Every ethnic group or people has the sense of sharing a common ancestry. What's your point exactly? - Sthenel 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head. "Has the sense of sharing" is not the same as "sharing". The old wording "defined as" makes it sound like an objective definition. I have no problem with mentioning fictive common ancestry as an element of Greek ethnic ideology, but I do have a problem with presenting this as an objective fact. --Macrakis 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But each ethnic group, as a whole, shares a common ancestry, meaning a common ancestral background. - Sthenel 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Each ethnic group may believe in sharing a common ancestry. But no serious scholar has accepted that as a biological fact since the 19th century, though of course it influenced the political history of the 20th century in some rather dramatic ways.... --Macrakis 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so..anyway - Sthenel 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's resolve this the Wikipedia way. Find a WP:Reliable source for your position. I have one for mine.... --Macrakis 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that a people does have a common ancestry, when this people lives in the same region for 4,000 years. - Sthenel 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What you "know" is original research. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. --Macrakis 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Greeks share a common ancestry in which ancient Greeks, Byzantine Greeks etc are included, based on the people who lived in Greece through 4,000 years. In the same way other nations of Europe share a common ancestry, something that is not true for example in the USA where people come from different parts of the world. - Sthenel 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a claim is not a substitute for reliable sources. --Macrakis 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis: can I have a look at the (reliable) source you mentioned earlier? Crvst 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see your sources. - Sthenel 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you need sources for the belief in common ancestry, since you believe it yourself, but here's a quick example:

...a re-elaboration of who is Greek... We shall show the dynamic nature of this national identity

Even though early Greek nationalism in the late 18th century was marked by the influence of the Enlightenment (Kitromilides, 1990: 25–33; Veremis, 1983:59–60), ever since the first decades of the existence of the independent Greek state, the nation has been defined with reference to common ancestry (Kitromilides, 1983; Veremis, 1983, 1990), culture and language (Kitromilides, 1990: 30).

Anna Triandafyllidou, Mariangela Veikou, "The hierarchy of Greekness: Ethnic and national identity considerations in Greek immigration policy", Ethnicities '2:2:189–208

The point here is that (a) the definition of Greekness has changed over time and (b) the belief in common ancestry has been considered part of that definition at various times. Surely you don't disagree? --Macrakis 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And what all these prove? - Sthenel 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis: after a quick browsing through that article by A. Triantafyllidou, a snippet of which you provided above, I believe she mostly refers to the political entity (the Greek nation-state, that is) not the Greek people, the latter being of a more complex and fluid nature. Anyhow, in the aforementioned article, there's a quote by Anthony Smith on the definition of nation: "a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members". One could use parts of that quote to support a common ancestry. Crvst 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. - Sthenel 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Smith quote is fine, but he specifically does not mention ancestry, which would come under "common myths and historical memories". --Macrakis 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharing a common ancestry could be replaced with being of Greek descent (see Kinship and descent and Cultural anthropology). Crvst 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a circular definition.... Not to mention that it excludes assimilation, which has been an important process in the history of the Greek people. In ancient times, the descendants of the (non-Greek) Minoans became Greek; in modern times, the descendants of Slavs, Albanians, and others became Greek. --Macrakis 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's where you make the mistake. Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics. It's about the common genealogy and family relationships. However, we won't start another discussion about Fallmerayer's views. - Sthenel 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics. It's about the common genealogy and family relationships." If you are saying that the concept of "common ancestry" is really about fictive ancestry, then we are agreeing. Otherwise, I can't make sense of the statement. --Macrakis 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "genos" has to do with genealogy, which means family history, family trees, which are extended to wider kindred groups, thus to a common ancestry. Read the related articles of wikipedia. But your point is to talk about genetics. There is already a section in the article which mentions Fallmerayer's aspects which were rejected. We won't start another conversation on these views. That's all. - Sthenel 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning Fallmerayer is simply irrelevant and inflammatory flamebait, and I will not take that bait.

As for the rest, if I understand you correctly, when you say "family history", "family tree", and "common ancestry" you are not talking about a biological fact, but some sort of metaphor or myth. In that case, we agree, and we just need to find more accurate wording to reflect that. --Macrakis 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In Ancient Greece they used to live with myths and epic heroes. Not now. I'm talking about a biological fact. - Sthenel 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop talking in riddles. How can the "common ancestry" be a "biological fact" when you say that "Common ancestry has no relationship with genetics."? --Macrakis 12:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Realtionship With Italian

Someone should put in that Greeks are Realted to Italian, no too long ago it was there but someone deleted it. Greeks are related to Italians (unsigned comment by User:Americanbritishitalian at 2 Jun 07 17:19:08)

This has been discussed to death, and the clear consensus was not to have any "related" field at all. --Macrakis 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i will do some more research and tell you my results --Americanbritishitalian

There is connection with Southern Italians for sure.

Mycenaens and Pelasgians

Some issues in the current version as recently reverted by Helladios:

The Mycenaean proto-Greeks were probably the first historical people to arrive in the area now referred to as 'Greece'

I'm trying to understand what this means. There were certainly people in Greece long before the Mycenaeans. So presumably this statement hinges on the notion of "historical people". If this means "people of the past", clearly it is not correct. Perhaps it means "people mentioned in written records" (that is, by Homer, Herodotus, et al. writing hundreds of years later)? But the Pelasgians, Minoans (Eteo-cretans), Minyans, and Dryopes are also mentioned by Homer and Herodotus. Perhaps it means (the first) "people who left their own written records"? OK, I suppose that's true for the later Mycenaeans on the mainland, but the Minoans had writing before that in Crete (and which was apparently the source of Mycenaean writing).

So what exactly is this sentence trying to say?

It continues:

and the first that can be considered 'Greek' as an ethnic identity taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek.

They are certainly Greek-speaking. But I don't think we have any evidence of "ethnic identity". We don't even know what they called themselves; certainly not Mycenaeans, perhaps Achaeans? And did they consider themselves as part of the same ethnos as the Dorians? After all, both Herodotus (8.73) and Homer (Odyssey 19.172-79) consider the Achaeans and the Dorians to be distinct ethnoi.

Later in the article, we have the passage:

Throughout the centuries, the Greeks have been known by a number of names, including:

Pelasgians - The ancient Greek references to the Pelasgians are confusing; however some ancient Greek and Roman writers describe them as Greeks.

Yes, a few late ancient authors consider the Pelasgians to be a kind of Greek, but "Pelasgian" is never a name for the Greeks at large. If we were to include "Pelasgian" in the list of "names of the Greeks", should we also include "Cretans", "Boeotians", etc.? --Macrakis 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know that until the decipherment of the Linear B inscriptions in 1952 which prove that they are an early form of Greek, the people known as Mycenaeans did not consider to be Greek by the majority of scholars. (A similar situation is going on with the Minoans and we know that if the Linear A and the Cretan hieroglyphic scripts will ever get deciphered and if the decipher prove that they are an earlier form of Greek, then obviously the Minoans will be Greek-speaking at least, if not consider them proto-Greeks as well.)

So perhaps it will make a better sense if the sentence will be something like this: The Mycenaean proto-Greeks were the first people in the area now referred to as 'Greece' (the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula) that considered to be Greek, taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek. (Obviously someone with good English as Macracis can make a better sentence.)

About the Pelasgians: Greek mythology and most of the ancient Greek writers believe them to be autochthonous. And as it is already stated in Pelasgians article, "contrary to modern understanding, Herodotus was convinced that the Hellenes were not invaders, but descendants of Pelasgians". Of course "Pelasgian" is never a name for the Greeks at large, but the same could be told for the Mycenaeans. And certainly for the same reason we shouldn’t also include "Cretans", "Boeotians", etc, other ways we might as well include the whole list of the Greek tribes!!! Nevertheless, this article should not include dubious information and credibility must be top importance. Helladios 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (I am sorry for my bad English…)

I guess my message wasn't very clear. No one questions that the Mycenaeans were Greek-speakers; as you say, the scholarly consensus is that Linear B is a form of Greek. As for Linear A and the Minoans, we're not here to speculate. The problem is the inference that because they spoke proto-Greek, they had some sort of ethnic identity as "Greeks". It may or may not be true, but there is no evidence for it. As you know, there were other Greek-speaking tribes (Dorians, Ionians, ...) and we simply don't know what sort of "ethnic identity" they had in 1500 BC. As a comparison, think of the situation in Italy: Metternich said "Italy is a geographic expression", and people in the 18th century thought of themselves as Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese, not as Italians, even though today of course we consider all of them to be Italians. If this sort of thing can change in 150 years, think of the 1000 years that separate 1500 BC and the earliest classical Greek texts!

As for Pelasgian, yes, it seems basically to have been a name for the indigenous, pre-Greek people, and we now know that Herodotus was wrong in the long term (though he was right in the sense that Greek had arrived in the area a millennium before he was writing!). The scholarly consensus (which again may be proven wrong) is that the Pelasgians were not Greek-speakers, and quite possibly not Indo-European speakers. So "Pelasgian" should not be given as a name for Greeks. --Macrakis 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But the people that we know as Mycenaeans had all the primal characteristics required so we can be sure that they had a Greek ethnic identity: the Greek language (the most important characteristic of an ethnos), the Greek religion and the Greek culture and customs, not to mention the secondary characteristics like territorial traits etc. (The situation in Italy in the18th century is quite different; one must consider the geopolitical situation in the whole Italian peninsula between 12th and 18th centuries -the Italian city states and the feudalism and so on-, a situation that led Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese people to claim differentiation of the rest of the Italians, as you stated.) As for the Pelasgians, I agree that we are not sure yet, that’s why the sentence in the article is as it is. However, Παναγιώτης Κ. Χρήστου in his work "Οι Περιπέτειες των Εθνικών Ονομάτων των Ελλήνων", (Εκδ. Οίκος Κυρομάνος, ανατύπωση 4ης έκδοσης, Θεσσαλονίκη 2003, ISBN: 960-7812-22-0) includes the name Pelasgians to the names for Greeks. Helladios 06:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that "this article should not include dubious information and credibility must be top importance". That is why we must be careful not to project 19th and 20th century notions of ethnicity back to 1500 BC.

The notion that "language [is] the most important characteristic of an ethnos" is an Enlightenment idea, about 3000 years too late to be relevant to the Mycenaeans. There have been periods where Greekness was defined by language, other periods where it was defined by (Orthodox Christian) religion, other periods where it was defined by politics. As for the "Greek culture and customs", what exactly do you have in mind as being in common between 1500 BC and 500 BC that isn't also held in common with other Indo-European peoples? In any case, all of these external factors don't tell us whether the various Greek-speaking groups in the Greek peninsula though of themselves as being part of one ethnos. That is an emic question, which etic evidence is not very helpful for. I think, too, you misunderstand the Italian situation. It is not that "Sicilians or Venetians or Piedmontese people claim[ed] differentiation of the rest of the Italians"; there was no such thing as "the rest of the Italians". And tell me, please, how you know that the "geopolitical situation" in the Mycenaean period was not as fragmented or more so than that in 12-18th c Italy?

Now, for Pelasgian, are you saying that Χρήστου claims that "Pelasgian" was used as an ethnonynm for all Greeks by someone? If not, why is it different from "Boeotians" or whatever? --Macrakis 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid I don’t perfectly understand you; it’s the language barrio you see. To conclude -and make it clearer- are you suggesting that the people we know as Mycenaeans weren’t Greeks? As for Pelasgians as an ethnonym, Χρήστου is using it as a general name for the proto-Greek tribes that arrived to Greece which was then named Pelasgia by them (Her., Histories B, 56). Again, as for the Pelasgians, I agree that we are not sure yet, that’s why the sentence in the article is as it is. Helladios 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that there were several Greek-speaking groups and several Greek-speaking cities in Mycenaean times, but we don't know if they thought of themselves as a single group. I am also suggesting that it is silly to project back modern or even Classical categories into this period 1000 years earlier than our records (Linear B tells us a lot about their language and economic organization, but not much about their mentality). --Macrakis 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We agree there. But the title of the section in the article is "Names used for the Greek people" (I think meaning names used for the Greek people by both the Greeks and by non-Greeks) and not Names that the Greeks called themselves. I'm sure you understand my point. Helladios 20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It should by no means be implied that Pelasgians and Minoans were Greek. The former people was transparent and culturally insignificant, while the latter was influential but not Greek-speaking. Mycenaeans on the other hand were Greek-speaking and mainstream scholarship regards them simply as 'Greek'. What they called themselves is irrelevant. Miskin 11:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I agree that the Mycenaeans are called Greeks in mainstream scholarship. However, the discussion was around one particular passage in the article:

[ Mycenaeans are ] the first that can be considered 'Greek' as an ethnic identity taking into account the Linear B syllabary (used for writing Mycenaean) as the earliest attested form of Greek.

The part about "as an ethnic identity" doesn't make sense, because we know nothing about Mycenaean ethnic identity. Perhaps each city thought of itself as an ethnos, for example. And the part about the Linear B syllabary is not really necessary here. --Macrakis 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that they are the first who can be considered to belong to the Greek nation no matter if they knew about it or not. - Sthenel 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a sense of humor! So to be serious, then, we agree that the "ethnic group" language should be removed. --Macrakis 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Romioi

I think there must be a detailed reference to the term Romioi. It isn't just a name. It declares an identity, much more different than Greeks. After reading this article I understand that modern Greeks are, more or less, descendants of ancient greeks. And yes, they are, but in terms of cultural and lingual continuity. For 1500 years the greek speaking christians of the eastern roman empire and later the ottoman empire called themselves Romioi. The modern Greeks are descendants in terms of blood (I couldnt find a better term) of Romioi, not of the ancient Greeks. Because the term Romioi includes the Vlachs (former romanic language speaking modern Greeks), Arvanites (modern Greeks with albanian ancestry), descendants of Latin invaders and the large greek speaking christian group of the people of Eastern Roman Empire, with ancient Greek most of all, but also minor asian, slavic, armenian, syrian origin. How can someone so easily, in ten lines, refers to Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the ethnical changes that happened through its 1.000 years of life? Eastern Roman Empire didnt recognise greek or syrian or slavic or armenian nation under one term: If someone adopted orthodox religion and could speak greek, he became Romaios, that means Romios. That doesnt mean the total extinction of armenian for example race or syrian, but, yes, a certain number of armenians was assimiliated into the eastern medieval Romans, the Byzantines. Eastern Roman Empire, the wrong called Byzantine Empire, was a choana of nations. For example we cannot deny the slavic migration through modern greece and the following assimilation of the slavs.

Things are not as simple as you present them. Aravnites and Vlachs were not Romaioi as they were not Greek-speaking, they were distinct ethnies of the Romeic millet. By the time they were assimilated to the Greek-speakers, the latter was already called Hellenes. "Romaioi" is commonly explained by modern scholars as "Christian Greek", I have at least three sources to show you for this, plus the Latin name for "Romaioi" had been "Graeci". Also Byzantium did recognise ethnies, in fact it separated the world to 'Romaioi' (or Graikoi) and the 'ethnikoi' (nationals). Slavs, Vlachs, Armenians, Venetians and Normans were all ethnie, Greeks (which includes hellenised people) were Romaioi. It is impossible and pointless to try to estimate how many people were Hellenised in Byzantium and how many hailed directly from the ancient Greeks. What is important is that the main regions of ancient Greek colonisation in the Balkans and coastal Anatolia remained Greek-speaking to the modern era. Those regions were the heartland of Byzantium. Miskin 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The heartland of Byzantium never was the today Greece. The heartland of Byzantium, demographically, economically, was Anatolia, from Smyrne to Edessa. Thats why when Seljuks took over Anatolia, Byzantium started to decline. Anatolia saved Byzantium when Slavs entered southern Balkan in 600-800 AD and the situation in today Greece was flexible. But when Anatolia had gone away Byzantium collapsed."Romaioi" is commonly explained by modern scholars as "Christian Greek" Modern scholars speak about christian greek speaking, nor christian greek. Herbert Hunger, Hans Georg Beck, Ostrogorsky state that. Romeic millet in ottoman empire was one and only, with Ecumenical Patriarchate in head. The total ethnic divisions were a later phenomenon. In greek texts from 16,17th century some Vlach and Bulgarian leaders are called, from the greek author, as national heroes. Why?...Things of course arent so clear, but this article is surely far from accurate. Slavs, Vlachs, Armenians, Venetians and Normans were all ethnie, Greeks (which includes hellenised people) were Romaioi... each case is different. The slavs invaders of 7-8 cent. assimilated with Byzantines and relative quickly became Romioi. A part of Armenians also. Descendants of Venetians, especially in Crete, became Romioi (orthodox and greek speaking). Vlachs showed up and after a period of time (remember Erotokritus, where Vlachs are presented as enemies) they did became part of romeic millet. But the point is that in Byzantium noone cared about origin. The language and the religion were enough criteria to adopt the Romaios citizenship. Remember Isauroi, armenian origin emperors, syrian theological writers and hymn composers. The examples of famous people are so many. Consider what happened in the lower classes, when for example emperors transfered slavs from balkan to asia in order to fight heretics.What is important is that the main regions of ancient Greek colonisation in the Balkans and coastal Anatolia remained Greek-speaking to the modern era. You are absolutely right! Thats the point of modern greeks origin theory. But the hole mixed situation for over 10 centuries must be stated. We cannot speak for Greeks with total consiousness from Pericles to Kolokotronis. In medieval times the way people faced their identity was different from the today one country, one separate nation. This complexity, in which many subjects are open to discuss (I am not saying that these issues are completely explained), must be pointed. The way modern greek state faced, from 1830 until today, its origin shows fear for every period of time, in which greek identity is not so clear on the surface. And, it is important to explain how from Romaioi romeic Millet showed up, and how from romeic millet greeks showed up. This article hides all these issues. Thats my disagreement.Latins called the Byzantines as Greeks, not because they believed that Byzantines were ancient Greek origin, but because they claimed for themselves the heritage of Roman Empire and of course for the greek language.

Every nation has some admixture from other peoples, not only in the case of Greeks. You should understand that when foreigners enter a region, the local population doesn't extinct but assimilate them culturally and genetically. So, a local population does not lose its relation to their ancient ancestors because of the invaders. - Sthenel 07:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The genetical assimilation is something I dont understand. I suppose u mean mixture. Is the greek gen more powerful from the slavic or armenian one? The point is that in the case of modern Greeks we dont discuss about a few thousand foreigners, but a 1000 year process of cultural and racial mixture, with the greek culture, combined with judeochristian religion and roman administration system, always on the top. The critical question is this: are the Romioi, a part of which formed the ottoman romeic millet, from which the greek speaking orthodox part arose as new Greeks, exactly the same culturally, the most important, and secondly racially with the Greeks who entered (who were conquered by Romans is the reality) the Roman Empire? My answer, looking the facts, is no. And this change must be explained and shown. The medieval time is the most crucial for the formation of the new Greek nation. New greek language took its today form in the medieval times, new greek folk culture is in its most part medieval and the racial composition of new Greeks has its roots in the medieval times. I have written 60 lines, but still you accuse me for saying that new greeks and ancient greeks are unconnected. I dont say that. But, except from this undisputable connection, greek history has also other important parts, which are necessary to be studied. I dont believe that ancient greeks are alien to new greeks, but the medieval journey of ancient greeks has a lot hidden elements to offer. Thats my point. I commented this article, because in its substance reflects the new greek state educational system, which, in order to construct national consiousness (as every educational system inspired by 19th cent. nationalism), suppresses crucial historical changes.

Modern Greeks are as close to the ancient Greeks as much as any nation is close to their ancient ancestors. Don't forget that even proto-Greeks had assimilated foreign tribes when they arrived to Greece. A nation, in its history, absorb other peoples and this is a natural procedure. And it is true that foreign people who enter a region, through admixture tend to lose their genetic otherness and become part of the local people in terms of genetic. In medieval times, Greeks did exist as a nation within the Byzantine Empire, and the greek-speaking population of Greece were not just Hellenised people. - Sthenel 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its clear whats my point and its clear whats your point. Nation, as we consider it today, was absent in medieval times. Greeks didnt absorbed genetically other nations, but they were mixed with other people. There is a great difference between these two aspects. You are facing medieval history having in your mind the modern nation-theory, I am trying to face medieval times by its own rules and facts, without seeking to confirm an identity. And last, the greek speaking population were not just Greeks...thats the other side of your statement. We cannot hide neither yours or mine.

and deemed themselves the ethnic, cultural, and literary heirs of ancient Greece

How can someone certify this statement? There isnt a single medieval greek text, in which such a statement is written. Only in later medieval times, there are a few similar... declarations. We should write what is certified from research, not what we want to believe. Some sources for this argument must be given.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is pretty much common knowledge in mainstream scholarship. See Paul Magdalino, «Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium». Miskin 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of mainstream scholarship, thats why I pointed that. The selfconsioucness of Byzantines was christian, not greek...at least thats the conclusion from studying the medieval greek texts. Thats for the ethnic heirs. For cultural and literary side, medieval greek speaking writers declare that their foretype were ancient and hellenistic writers. But this heir feeling isnt clear at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Ethnic sentiment was weak in late antiquity Christian Europe, but when it existed in Byzantium it translated to the medieval Greek word "Graikos". This word is "attested since earlier times in Byzantium though never in official use" (see Tradition and Transformation in medieval Byzantium - Aldershot, 1991 or P. Magdalino from above). Until 1204 the term "Hellene" has a negative connotation in the vernacular language, but after 1204 it gains ground even in official use. Mainstream scholarship holds that Byzantine self-perception was Greek Orthodox Christian and Greek-speaking, this doesn't imply that there was a Greek nationality, but it does imply that non-Greek-speaking Christians within the Empire, be it Catholic or Orthodox, were called "ethnikoi" i.e. foreigners. I gave you some sources for those claims, which is what you asked for. Miskin 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

`By the early 20th century, over half of the overall Greek-speaking population was settled in Asia Minor (now Turkey)`

This sentence if not reliable because no source if cited. Therefore, if no one objects, I`ll erase it.Thelorien 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)