Talk:Greece

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2

WHY IN GREEGLISH;;;;;;

Why we are the only country page that has it's name not only in English and in the home language but also in that non existent language;;;;;;; I wonder what's the purpose.Please delete it. (unsigned comment by 155.207.252.66 2007-06-05T07:18:19)

It is not Greeklish, it is a transliteration, as found on other country pages where the native name is written in non-Roman characters: see Russia, Iran, etc. --Macrakis 12:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GREEK LANGUAGES =

I definitely miss a section on the languages spoken in Greece. No matter how much we love Greece, the fact remains Greeks and their government are not always right. And I'm persuaded they are not right at all in the question of minorities. There is a section about languages for almost every country in Europe and the world, why would Greece be an exception? We know Greek is spoken there, but also Tsakonian, Albanese, Vlach, Turkish, Bulgarian and (not to offend anyone) Slav-Macedonian. Accepting the official Greek viewpoint that all inhabitants of Greece are Greeks and only speak Greek or that there are no minorities in the country is pure self-delusion, and Wikipedia should not accept it. Moreover, it would be disrespectful for the truth and for all the people belonging to these officially rejected minorities.

I read your comment on my page, I'll be sure to add something about minority languages when I have the time (of which I have precious little at the moment), but I think before thinking about that we need to:

1: Cut down the size of the history article and make each stage more relevant to how it relates to modern Greece (i.e. the role of Byzantium and the Megali idea in the early 20th century, as well as Byzantium being a more 'tangible' link with the Greek past.

2: Source a lot more of the information we already have.

3: Rewrite a few sections into a more encyclopedic tone.

4: Check for spelling e.t.c (this one is obvious).

5: Cut down on the amount of images.

--NeroDrusus 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, we could find someplace to include a wikilink to Languages of Greece --Macrakis 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Added under the minorities sub-heading.--NeroDrusus 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Horrible "History" section

The history section with all those sub-sections is horrible! Since there is the article History of Greece there is no reason to overexpand here. One section per WP:SS would be fine. Another user had initiated this change, but, unfortunately, the article went back to the "old good days". Yes, we know we have a great history, but there is no reason to create such an awful structure undermining the article's quality. Many words in the wrong place are not always the best way to promote one's history. Sometimes being laconic when and where it is appropriate works better.--Yannismarou 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want the history section shortened and compressed? Or rewritten? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not read it in detail, but the sub-sections IMO should definitely be merged in one comprehensive section; this will require some shortening. Anyway, I intend to work a bit on Government right now, and in the future I'll possibly work on the History section, after of course more users express their opinion on what I said above. I repeat again that some time ago, when the "History" section was compressed and merged in one section without sub-section it was much much better, and in accord with the trend of almost all FA country articles.--Yannismarou 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox (statehood)

I dont understand. The infobox says that the first states were formed around 3000 BC while the last independent state was abolished in 1461. Runcimans' The Fall of Constantinople is provided as a reference. Thats fine, but did a state called Greece or Ellada or Hellas or Ellas really existed in the antiquity and/or during the middle ages? The term Ancient Greece doesnt refer to a particular state (like the Roman Empire or Roman Republic) but it refers to a historical period. There were several city-states like Athens, Sparta and so on, and later, in the middle ages there was the Byzantine Empire and its succesors such as the Despotate of Morea, and so on. None of those souvereign entities was called Greece (nor Hellas, Ellas etc.). Of course all of them play an important part in the Greek history and culture, so the Greek people claim them as their own, however its the statehood continuity we are talking about here. The modern Greek state was created in 1825 and thats the only real beginning of the story, before that territory was Ottoman Turkey, before that: Byzantine Empire, before that Roman Empire, before that.. and so on. There was no state called GreeceYudete cour 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree in parts here. The "first Greek civilisations" of 3000 BC(!) are plainly wrong - at that date, Greeks weren't anywhere in the neighbourhood yet. The Kykladic and early Minoan civilisations were anything but Greek. And for the later states and empires, judging to what extend they were manifestations of what we would call "Greece" is, to say the least, problematic. I don't doubt some people would regard, say, the Byzantine Empire as such. But it's not straightforwardly so, and it's not something that should be in an infobox. I keep saying here and elsewhere: Infoboxes are a severely overused feature of Wikipedia, they are unsuitable for presenting any complex, potentially contentious information. Anything that needs any significant amount of hedging, disclaimers, explanations, and anything that is not plainly and obviously factual should not be in an infobox. The obvious history in that timeline starts with 1821, I'll remove the rest (or remove the whole section from the box, if people prefer). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, you can find equally dubious claims at articles like Germany and Russia which demonstrate that the name doesn't really seem to be relevant. I think that Trebizond may be worth restoring, the view that it was a Greek state is rather widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you - with your long experience in Wikipedia(?) - certainly know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to follow. And the Holy Roman Empire at least did have a Kingdom of Germany (which was actually called that) at its core. (Maybe they should have linked to that article rather than the HRE one though). As for Trapezunt, the question is not whether it was "a Greek state", the question is whether it was "Greece". Which it was not. And by the way, this is also not just about the "name", it's about the essence of the concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "essence of the concept" and the "name" were pretty much first seen in Philip's Hellenic League and Alexander's Hellenistic Greece. There's no continuity since then, of course, but I think that was the first documented instance when all Greeks were [briefly] united in a single ethnos, with the same name. NikoSilver 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the concept of "Greece" (as a geographical-cultural unit) is probably older than that. But that's the point: it's completely independent of whether and when there was any political entity corresponding to it (there certainly never was one for "Hellenistic Greece". The short-lived existence of that "league" under Philip is a minor incident in the large scheme of things; it tells us diddly squat about Greek history as a whole (and chosing it as a point of departure here would be hopelessly OR). Fact is that no pre-modern state ever played a defining role in what "Greece" was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheren't the Greek city-states the first formation of "Greece"? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't. They were the first formation of the Greek city-states. – But even granted that you could make an argument that they were, that would only show how arbitrary all these decisions are. They are not facts, they are interpretations. The Minoans? The City States? The League of Corinth? The Empire of Alexander? Byzantium? Take your pick. Come back here and put it in the infobox if you have established, on the basis of multiple reliable sources, that any one of these is undisputable the first, with the same amount of factual certainty as the fact that the land area of Greece is 131,990 km² or that GDP was officially estimated at $356.258 billion in 2007. Those are things that go in infoboxes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking a rather narrow, legalistic view. Greece existed well before 1829 without ever having the meaning it has today. The existence of Greece was never contingent on the existence of a state bearing that name. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I totally agree, that's what I said. But the question is whether we should pick out any particular date in its history regarding the founding of such a political body, and put it in the infobox. We shouldn't, exactly because the historical existence of "Greece" was never contingent on any such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But since we've established that Greece does not necessarily refer to any particular political entity, we don't have to pick out a specific date. We can simply mention the first Greek civilisations. If Greece is good enough for Mycenaean Greece, it's good enough here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But that field of the infobox is about states, it's not supposed to be about civilisations or cultures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say that? In fact, browsing through country articles has given me completely the opposite impression. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's implied in the whole context of the infobox. The article as a whole may be about the historical/cultural/geographical concept, or at least include it in its coverage, but the box is solidly about the state and nothing else. It's about the entity that has an official name (Elliniki dhimokratia), a flag, a president, an anthem, a capital, statistical measures for GDP and population, etc. All this information applies to the modern state, not to the Minoans. And the field we are talking about is meant to represent when this entity was formed. It's fine to include pre-modern kingdoms if there is some degree of actual political continuity (like in the sense of international law where successor states are seen as continuing the sovereignty of their predecessors, even across revolutions or radical changes or regime), but cultural continuity alone is really stretching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that argument if it were applied uniformly. But the implication that "some degree of actual political continuity" applies to Old Great Bulgaria and Bulgaria but not to the Byzantine Empire and Greece is plainly absurd, as is the suggestion that the first historical mention of Lithuania or the Christianisation of Poland are more valid additions to a country infobox than Mycenaean Greece. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in the Bulgarian and Lithuanian case they've ignored the non-continuity, true enough, but at least they are dealing with an actual state that was actually called like that. The Polish case strikes me as pretty silly. But whatever, that's still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's do it better than them here, there's no need to imitate other people's follies. The field is supposed to be about establishments of "states", and like it or not, a state called Greece really never existed throughout history, before 1821. Everything relying on interpreting an earlier date as an establishment as such is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And please, please, please, always remember, it's not about whether we might agree that some earlier entity could be regarded as Greece; it's still only about whether anything about that is straightforward enough to go into a tabulated factsheet, where it can be expressed in a single word. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

fixing unindent:

Why not 1975? There was no state (continuously) called the Hellenic Republic before then, after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but on this level, between 1821 and 1975, the thing about continuity of sovereignty really does apply, doesn't it? But sure, if you like we could add 1975 as yet another date of "establishment", of the current constitutional system. No objection to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it does. Sovereignty passed from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg to the Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the present format presenting "Modern statehood" is pretty good, we don't need to go into speculations of what "Greece" is or what "is" is, in current format one can see very clear when the modern state was established, as for ancient Greece that's a different story and should be explained in text not infobox. -- AdrianTM 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree..the fact that other articles are wrong doesn't mean that this one should be as well. Alexhard 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As everyone acknowledges that

the history section is horrible how can we change it if we are not eventually allowed to it;;I tried and they revert it.Anyway it has too many details and junk information right now that must be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle of Pontus (talk • contribs)

Please do feel free to shorten it. The revert was just an (understandable) knee-jerk reaction by a routine vandalism patroller. When erasing larger chunks of text, just make sure you include an edit summary that shows you know what you're doing. Blanking of whole sections is otherwise something many vandals do, so you must understand if people react with suspicion. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK.Understood.Eagle of Pontus 20:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me that reverted -- edit summaries will keep me and the rest of us from reverting what seems at first glance to be vandalism -- at the very least it'll slow us down to look and see what you're doing. If you do something like blank lots of content, explain why, so we know. Sorry 'bout the revert, then. Gscshoyru 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am new and i didn't know the procedure.I reformed the section and i hope other people will be interested in the project.Anyway everyone shall keep in mind that the History of Greece can be found in details in the synonymous article.Here in the article about the Greek state we shall write the History section as short as we can so that we give the reader a general view, a summary .If he is interested then he can go the specific link provided and read everything we wants till the smallest detail.Eagle of Pontus 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're quite right about that. Actually, there even exists a guideline somewhere (lemme see: Wikipedia:Summary style) that has some good recommendations on how to do this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks.I will read it and see what i can do about this.I want my country's page to be informative (and to have a star i must admit Lol).Eagle of Pontus 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is vote on Hellas redirecting to Greece?

Hellas currently redirects to Greece. The An attempt was made to change it to the disambig which was reverted with this note on Talk:Hellas:

This is, by far, the primary use. Should point to the article. If you dispute that, please go to talk:Greece, where the issue has been voted on in the past. Regards, sys < in 09:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in Talk:Greece and in both archives but I could not find any vote. Could someone please insert exact directions to where this was discussed (a direct link with html anchor maybe)? Thanks. -Wikianon 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the broken link!

In the chapter "External links" there is a link to the "Prime Minister of Greece" web site. 1st. The link refers to the old website and it does not work anymore. The correct link is: http://www.primeminister.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4762&Itemid=89

2nd. The correct title is "Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic" NOT "Prime Minister of Greece"

Is it possible to correct these few mistakes? P.S. How could I provide you a brand new photo of the Prime Minister Dr Kostas Karamanlis in order to update the old one used in wikipedia?

Hi, thanks for pointing out the problem with the link. Sure, we can fix that. Actually, you'd be quite welcome to simply go and fix it yourself! :-) (the motto is WP:SOFIXIT, or, be BOLD.)

As for the image, if you have a good free image you can go to Special:Upload to upload it to the Wikipedia server, and then include it in an article with [[Image: ...]]. However, please be careful with copyright - we can accept images only if they have been validly released by the copyright holder under a free license. Feel free to ask me if you have further questions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry I didn't notice the article was "protected" from editing by newcomers, because of previous problems with had with vandalism. So, you were right you couldn't have fixed it yourself. I've lifted it now though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think

it is worth of a star the article.What do you think; Eagle of Pontus (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean an WP:FA? If you mean that, this article is still far from it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, come here and discuss

To "Eagle of Pontus" and "Yg...": before you keep reverting each other, PLEASE come here to discuss. You are both reasonable intelligent people, so talk it out, politely. Eagle, please get used to our discussion culture in this project; things like "LOL" and "what's wrong with you" have no place in a constructive civil discussion between good-faith contributors. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK

Ok, thanks for the invitation fut. perf . My main beef is that passages that were worked on for a long period were lost. On top of that , the other thing worrying me is that the original rationale for having a particularly long modern history section has been mislaid - that many west european readers will know particularly little about modern greek history relative to other european nations, so that its a useful supplement. I appreciate that saome people found it cumbersome, but I'm afraid that with the loss of detail the modern history section as it now is, with all the sketchy summaries without the context of before ( about the junta, about the civil war, about modern relations with turkey ) will just reinforce preconceptions about a haphazard, chaotic modern history for our country without filling in outsiders about the actual contexts ( most of them won't read the History of Greece wiki entries & others).

Yg78788 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• This supposed to be an encyclopedia and more importantly this is the page of Greek state.What someone should reade here are the outlines of Greek history as far the History section is concerned Economy as far economy section is concerned etc.If he wants details he can click in History of Greece and read details in Economy of Greece and so on.Tiny unnecessary details are not to be put in the summary of it's section.They make page longer more difficult to read and drop it's quality.European reader can just click in which section he wants for further details or open a book. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

that's the point - most people just won't, and this is all they'll see of modern greek history ( starting from a very low base already).

Yg78788 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bright Future wants to go to Greece one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinautry (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mykonos image obscures text

The great Mykonos photo currently covers several words in the "Economy" section -- at least, as I'm viewing it via Firefox. Could someone please force the text to wrap properly to the picture's left? (As a total Wikipedia novice, I read the section on images and then experimented on doing this myself, to no avail; I tried adding "|right" in the graphic's description, but this had no effect whatsoever.) --Vivliothykarios (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Arvanites minority in Greece?

Are Arvanitas or people with Albanian origin minority in Greece, if they are not, why they are consider Greek ethnically  ? --Pelasgia (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Arvanites are considered Greek ethnically because they consider themselves to be Greek ethnically. It follows that they reject the notion that they are an ethnic minority. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote “An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry “ If they consider themselves Greek is this enough to consider them Greek ethnically?--Pelasgia (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See self-determination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean that they are not really ancestry Greek but by “self determination”, I am not sure of the relevance here although, they consider them to be Greek? --Pelasgia (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arvanitika

Take a chill pill, Lukas. If "closely related to" is good enough for Aromanian, why not Arvanitika? Where is the evidence that Arvanitika is closer to Albanian than Aromanian is to Romanian? Why should they be treated any differently? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do what you should have done when you started these debates two years ago: Read the literature, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, calm down and spare us the personal attacks. The literature is not as unanimous as you suggest. Just as many sources describe Arvanitika as a separate but related language, and Aromanian as a "form of Romanian". Why the inconsistency? That's all I'm asking. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't, in the case of Arvanitika. They simply don't. You have never once in those two and half years brought a reliable source that did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources on the Arvanites' views regarding their own language, many cited by you yourself. And you have yet to answer my questions. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we still have not a single reliable source claiming that Arvanitika is not a dialect of Albanian. And as long as that is so, all other questions of yours are moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Aromanian and Arvanitika issue should be treated in one sentence are they correlated? --Pelasgia (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)