Talk:Greece/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

the Hellenic Republic (in Greek: Ελληνική Δημοκρατία) (Helleniké Demokratía)

Shouldn't the latinisation read Ellinikí Dimokratía instead? The current version seems to be neither transliteration nor transcription. I'm not an expert in these matters, though.

Indeed. Could someone explain this? Etz Haim 15:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed the transliteration of Ελληνική Δημοκρατία to Helleniké Demokratía. I did it because I did not believe that Ellinikí Dhimokratía was an appropriate transliteration. Helleniké Demokratía is a not very successful attempt to write Hellēnikḗ Dēmokratía which I believe is an accurate transliteration of Ἑλληνική Δημοκρατία, because:
the δασεία (The symbol on the Ἑ) becomes H and the letter eta (η) becomes ē, because the Greek vowels η and ω are traditionally the long counterparts of the short vowels ε and ο which are transliterated as e and o so naturally the long versions would be ē and ō (e and o with a macron).
Because Greek does not have a standard form of transliteration I admit it is hard to know exactly what the transliteration should be and I know that the one I entered is not phoenetic, but it is an accurate representation the value of each letter and anyone who is familiar with Greek normally would be able to read it.
Please note that this method of transliteration is the same one the Romans used when transliterating borrowed words into the Latin alphabet. Some of those words have passed into English using a similar spelling. For example: Hellenes (Ἑλληνες / Héllēnes), Athens (Ἀθῆναι / Athḗnai), Homer (Ὅμηρος / Hómēros), Hagia Sophia (Ἀγία Σοφία / Hagía Sophía), hoi polloi (Οἱ πολλοί / hoi polloí).
If you still object to the trasliteration please, don't hesitate to change it. I am aware that I may be wrong. REX

Your transliteration relies on what's called "Erasmic" or "Erasmian" pronunciation (see

Polytonic Greek script. This particular pronunciation is a mistake; it is an unsuccessful attempt to re-create the oral ancient Greek language based on wild guessing and not much real evidence. See: http://www.bsw.org/?l=72081&a=Art06.html

However, in modern Greek there's no need to go into such things and dispute the Erasmian theory; there's much evidence of how modern Greek is pronounced in everyday life. Etz Haim 13:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. Helleniké Demokratía does not inform the reader how to pronounce Ἑλληνική Δημοκρατία. However, neither does Ellinikí Dhimokratía. As a native speaker of both English and Greek I know that the Greeks pronounce Ἑλληνική Δημοκρατία as IPA: /ɛˌliniˈki ðiˌmokɾæˈtiæ/ but English speakers would pronounce Ellinikí Dhimokratía as IPA: /ɛˌlɪnɪˈkɪ dʰɪˌmokɹaˈtia/. To get an English speaker to pronounce it as IPA: /ɛˌliniˈki ðiˌmokɾæˈtiæ/ is not always possible as they normally pronounce the letter a as IPA: /a/ except for in words with one syllable (for example cat IPA: /kæt/) and the letter r as IPA: /ɹ/. The closest we could get would be to spell it as Elleeneekee Theemokrateea, which would be pronounced IPA: /ɛˌliniˈki ðiˌmokɹaˈtia/. Therefore, given that we can’t provide a definite pronunciation, I believe that we should try to use a transliteration that most English speakers would be familiar with because of the abundance of Greek words in English and because the Erasmic pronunciation is so widespread (please look at the transliterations on the page Greek alphabet) or to provide its pronunciation in the IPA or SAMPA. Let me know what you think. REX 17:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Greek alpha (α) is

Andreas

01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that many Greeks believe that their language has been pronounced the same way in classical times as it is today, the mainstream view of scholars in linguistics including those teaching at Greek universities is the reconstructed Greek pronunciation, which is not identical with the Erasmian one. The above cited article by Caragounis presents a dissident view. There is ample discussion about this topic, wich seems to be a hot issue for some Greeks, in

Αrticle does not reflect that there is no seperation of State and Church in Greece and that the Church ofter offers its -unsolicited- opinion about matters such as foreing policy and the Great Greek Spitit[tm]
Ά, ρε τραγοπαπάδες, χέρι ξύλο που θέλετε... Project2501a 11:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at antidisestablishmentarianism for a portrait of some of the greek politics... but note that Greece is not Afghanistan, so there is separation of church and state in an essential degree. Etz Haim 12:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I apologise. I stand corrected: There's no official as in "enforced by law" seperation of church and state in greece -- Project2501a 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Major challenges remaining include the reduction of unemployment and further restructuring of the economy, including privatising several state enterprises, undertaking social security reforms, overhauling the tax system, and minimising bureaucratic inefficiencies." - Not a neutral point of view, in fact more of a manifesto. Is this the agena of the current administration? Suggest this be rephrased. --harry 14:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Harry, no, the article is correct. That's what all the Greek goverments ever since the 1982 PASOK Goverment, has been trying to do that. It's a slightly critital point of view :)

--Project2501a 10:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why "Hellenic Republic" rather than "Greek Democracy"? I'd have thought the latter is an accurate translation of the official Greek name of the country. Michael Hardy 23:17 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

There is some desire by Greeks to use the term "Hellenic" rather than "Greek" in English, as "Greek" is not a word of Greek origin, while "Hellenic" is (from the Greek "Elleniko"). Related to this is a still-in-the-works plan to rename the English name of the country from "Greece" to "Ellas". It's not quite decided enough to be an official plan, but it's being pushed by some, and may figure more largely in the memorabilia being printed up for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. In any case, "Hellenic Republic" is generally accepted as the formal name of the country in English, though the rest of the changes are still very much "haven't happened yet."

As for Democracy vs. Republic, the Greek word "Democratia" does not refer only to ancient-Athens style direct democracy, but more generally to any sort of rule by the people, whether direct or representative (there is no separate word for "republic"). Since the government of Greece is in fact a republic in English political terminology, that's a more accurate translation of the word in this context.

Delirium 02:57 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hellenic Republic seems to be the standard usage in English. And the Kind was always King of the Hellenes. Don't ask me why.  :-) -- Zoe

King Project2501a 10:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the word greek is greek too, but it refers to an ancient greek colony in what is nowadays Italy. Latins (and other latin derived languages after them) named all greek speakers "greeks" assuming it was the name of all the Helllenes. It was not and this 2000 year old mistake is what Greece is trying to correct now.

Actually, no. "Greek" is from the Turkish, i think, word "Γρεκός" which means slave. But that might be my version of the Greek History as Indoctrinated by the Greek Public School System[tm] Project2501a 10:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's wrong I believe -- for starters it wouldn't explain how all the western european nations also use "Greek" to refer to the ancient Greek -- that's not the effect of the Turks. The word "Greek" comes originally from a Greek word, then turned into the *Latin* Graecus. It was simply *also* adopted by the Turks, same way that "Ionian" was adopted by them and turned to "Yunanistan".

Nowadays we Greeks ourselves are among the very few who don't use a derivative of "Greek" to refer to ourselves. But "Greek" is nonetheless a Greek word, not a Turkish one. Aris Katsaris 12:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright, so, where do i start looking for some sources on what does the word Greek means and what is its Origin. Cuz we both know that the Great Greek Public School System[TM] is indoctrinating young greek kids with the idea that the Turks forced the word Greek upon the Hellines. -- Project2501a 13:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the etymology of the word Greek, see Magna Graecia. AFAIK, Turks call Greeks both "Yunan" and "Rum" ("Roman" citizen, Ρωμιός). Rum Millyet = the Roman State = Roumeli (Ρούμελη). Etz Haim 14:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think something more needs to be mentioned about the Greek military

I think something more needs to be mentioned about the current state of drafted soldiers and those denying service in Greece. or at least, i should make an article/point to the draft article already on Wikipedia
Hell I think a whole article on greek beurocracy and the re-occuring habbit of the greek goverment/public sector always trying to weasel themselves out of any bad situation, and never taking responsibility for their actions. Project2501a 10:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also think that a notice should be made about the current racist/neo-con attitude of the Greeks (yes, i am Greek, yes, i live in Athens. Project2501a 10:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Mostly to Adam Carr)

To this day, the royal family is not allowed to enter Greece (which caused considerable diplomatic problems when the Kings of Spain visited Greece a few years ago because the Queen is the sister of the deposed King of Greece). I thought the reason why the monarchy was thrown out of Greece was that the King was perveived by the Greek people to be complicit in the establishment of the dictatorship of the colonels. If the monarchy had been popular, the abolition of the Monarchy by the (already in trouble) dictatorship in 1973 would have been an impopular measure and the 1974 referendum would not have confirmed it. — Miguel 22:44, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

That is all true. Nevertheless, the statement that "the monarchy supported the dictatorship" is a contested one and cannot be simply stated as a fact. I believe King Constantine actually tried to retract his support for the regime and stage a counter-coup in 1968 which was why he had to leave the country, and why the regime then purported to abolish the monarchy. Adam 00:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If at the time of the referendum the public perception that the King was complicit played an important role in the outcome of the referendum, that should be pointed out. If it is also a fact that the role of Constantine is debated, that should be pointed out.

I guess what this shows is that the current description of the facts (and of their historical interpretation) in the article is incomplete and too brief, and I hope someone with better knowledge of them than me would go in and expand the article(s). It's like most pages about Cyprus mentioning the Turkish invasion but not the Greek coup, or the fact that the dictatorship fell largely because of its involvement in the botched coup. Then again, was the intervention in Cyprus popular and the defeat to Turkey that was impopular, or was the coup perceived to be inappropriate regardless of the outcome?

I am writing what I (mistakenly) understood were (established) facts. If the situation is more complicated, I think it is better to add qualifications and more facts than to revert to the previous, incomplete account. — Miguel 01:19, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of these points belongs either in

Yes I agree. I will have a go at it later. Adam 01:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sources of my edits:

1. Population Census 2001 Full facts here
2. Immigration facts Labor Institute of the Confederation of Labour Unions ZeroFuzion 18:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is there no mention of the original Summer Olympic Games anywhere in the Greek articles? This has to be fixed, surely! violet/riga (t) 16:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why there's no mention of the original Winter Olympic Games either. :) Etz Haim 20:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Districts of Greece are:

Ήπειρος -Ipiros Μακεδονία -Macedonia Στερεά Ελλάδα-Sterea Ellada Ιόνια Νησιά-Ionia Nisia Νησιά Αιγαίου-Nisia Eyeou Πελοπόννησος-Peloponisos Κρήτη-Kriti

The bolded part of the phrase "Tensions continue to exist between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus and the delimitation of borders in the Aegean Sea" has been described as a "foolish comment" in 82.35.40.249's edit summaries, or even worse, "rewriting history the Turkish way". So he removed it. I've explained to him in his talk page that this is neither favoring Turkey nor endorsing its claims, and that this is a representation of the facts only. Despite my suggestions, he kept reverting the page to his version. Doesn't the issue of the Aegean "gray zones" deserve a mention? Comments, please. Etz Haim 16:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since it is not recongised by anyone as an issue, except by Turkey, no it does not deserve a mention. You can write it however in Turkey´s page under the category irrational, old-fashioned aggressive claims against neighbours. Sotiris, 21 May 2005

Having followed this during a sojourn in the region, which included time in both Greece and Turkey, and quite a bit of work with legal issues, the policy of the Government of Turkey is that its claims against the accepted boundaries and maritime economic rights should not be refered to the Internationl Court of Justice, and that en force treaties, which are quite detailed, need to be "revised." Additionally it is the position of Turkey that it should be exempted from the United Nations Covention on the Law of the Sea, of which the U.S., and almost every country is a signatory, and which defines rights as well as the mechanism for judicial settlement of disputes. Therefore, by its nature, the term "Grey Areas" is an endorsement of Turkey's position.

The relationsip between Greece and Turkey has vastly improved, for a number of reasons, including further democratization within Turkey, which in turn are driven by EU effects.DaveHM 18:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article states: "Note however that apart from Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, temples of other religions do not exist in the capital, mainly due to opposition from the Greek Church."

Unfortunately, the article is correct. there are no Mosques in Athens that one can identify as such. All operational Mosques in Athens are houses in condominiums.

True. Doesn't this make the phrase «temples of other religions do not exist in the capital» wrong? By the way, I am at the moment in Cologne, Germany, a city with approx 10% Muslims and no Mosque with a minaret in the City. -Philip

And yeah, the Greek Church is actively opposing the opening of temples of any other religions. Just go ahead and try to submit a request to open a Buddist temple in Plaka or Kolonaki or somewhere inside the borders of the city of Athens. Here's a clue: you won't even make it outside the door of the ministy of internal affairs. you will be flooded by greek orthodox priests telling you that you are a shame to your country and that you should be excommunicated. I mean, think: The greek church demanded and achieved the banning of a COMIC, of a simple comic that depicted the life of jesus in a way that didn't match the way the church displays it. a COMIC! I won't even go into what happened when Scotcezee's (typo) movie "Last temptation of Christ" came out in the movie theaters.

You are obsessed! It is against the Greek Constitution to insult any religion (Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever) [art.14: (3) The seizure of newspapers and other printed matter, either before or after circulation, is prohibited. By exception, seizure after publication is permitted upon instruction by the Public Prosecutor because of insult to the Christian and all other known religions...]

Plaka is a protected area (very picturesque) and you are not allowed to build anything; I am not aware of any request to build a temple in Kolonaki, that has been rejected. Do you?- Philip

This is not true (I'm Greek); for example, there are many Mosques in Athens (since there are many Muslim immigrants, mainly from Pakistan). There is a discussion about building a mosque and a cultural centre 50km off the city-centre (in Spata), funded by some Saudis, and that's where the Greek state has been hesitant.

Unfortunately, again, it's very true. The article refers to that exact inability of Muslims living in the city of Athens to build a Mosque anywhere they want to and in a building form they want to and have it in public place, even when they can afford to purchase the land and build the mosque with their own money. from what i understand, last time they tried that their request was flat out denied by the City Planning office, who asked them to get a licence from the Greek Archbishop, who in turn, turned their request down/put the request in a shelf and said "don't call us, we'll call you".

I see you are Greek, so you probably know that the Spata Mosque isn't wanted by the Athens' Muslims either, because most of them live downtown. It was planned and financed by an Saudi millionaire (who by the way has never to Greece) -Philip

50km from the city centre is not exactly within the city limits of Athens, now, is it?

Spata is part of the Athens metropolitan area. -Philip

Since I'm not a wikipedian, can someone correct this? Thank you :)

you're right, i'll fix the article to reflect that there are no Mosques in athens that can be identified as such. Project2501a 21:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not coming back again; I just wanted to correct something obviously wrong, but whatever. Once again: There are many Mosques in Athens (I have been there many times); there is no Mosque with a minaret(the tower the Mosques have) in Athens yet. There are hundreds of Mosques with minarets in other parts of Greece, especially where Muslims live (Thrace, Kos, Rodos). I'm in no way nationalist, or religious (I don't believe). -Philip

(Please, sign your posts)

Done!

Actually the work "Grecos" is just an older form of "Ellinas" Aristotle writes that at some point that "this the land of the Pelasgians where the Ellines now inhabit, who were previously known as Greeks and Sellians."

User:128.113.201.75 has reverted the article thrice now. He is tryint to inject a nationalistic POV into the article by suggesting that most greeks want all immigrants in greece deported.

i've left a message in his talk page. if he keeps at it, i'm asking for page protection.

Project2501a 13:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I accidentally screwed up editing this page.I tried to revert to an earlier (non vandalised) version of this page and actually reinstated the vandalised parts.My bad. --Jsone42 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To eleborate on the Ελληνική Δημοκρατία discussion above: Is there a standard accepted way of transliterating Greek names from their original alphabets? Right now it's a mess, for instance:

• χ is sometimes kh, sometimes ch, sometimes h,
• υ when it is pronounced i is sometimes written y, sometimes i,
• υ when it is pronounced f is sometimes written u, sometimes f,
• σ between two vowels is sometimes written s, sometimes ss,
• ει and οι are sometimes written ei and oi, sometimes i (as they're pronounced),
• δ is sometimes d, sometimes dh.

What I'd like to see is something like

"Eugene van der Pijll 09:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right there's a big difference between classic and modern Greek. What I mean here is modern Greek. I think classic Greek is not such a problem, because there are usually common English (often via Latin) names (like Aristotle, Homer, Achaeus). Transliterating modern Greek names the classic way has big disadvantages, for instance the pronunciation is very different (beta is now vita). I'm looking for something like the way it's done on recent maps of Greece, and names of Greek politicians etc. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not very consequent now, for instance Βρύση (classic Bryse) can become Vrissi or Vrisi or Vrysi or Vryssi, see

Lykovryssi. Markussep

13:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some transliteration tables for Greek available online; most of them for classical Greek. Here you can find the one from the Library of Congress, which uses the same transliteration for Classical and for Modern Greek, except for Β (b, v). Eugene van der Pijll 14:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found several more here: [1]. I think the Library of Congress transliteration is in the ALA-LC column. Unfortunately it uses ē for η, and the ISO and ELOT (Greek standardization office) versions also have unpractical diacritics (not allowed in wikipedia titles, for starters). But the UN version (see [2]) looks good, the sub-macron is apparently optional. I also found a transliteration table at

User:Woodstone made a remark that a transliteration should be reversible. The UN/ELOT transliteration in its full form is reversible: it uses sub-macrons for the ambiguous characters (e.g. i_ for η, v_ and f_ for υ). But I don't think it has to be reversible for our purposes, so we can leave the diacritics out (BTW I can't even make them). The UN/ELOT system is also used by Michelin on its maps of Greece. Or do you mean that it isn't a transliteration but a transcription or romanization? Markussep 14:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that the systems described in the table are transcriptions. That's how I changed the article. I admit they come close to a transliteration, but not quite (especially i and o). The UN/ELOT system is surely adequate for almost all practical purposes. −Woodstone 14:21, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

For what many greeks do, see

I want to propose a

• use the common English name, if any (e.g. Athens, Crete, Hesiod)
• otherwise for modern Greek names, use the UN/ELOT
  transliteration/transcription of the Demotic Greek
  name. In the title without accents (e.g. Larisa, Kostas Karamanlis, Gytheio, Alexandroupoli, Kalampaka).
• for ancient Greek names use the traditional
  transliteration/transcription
  (e.g. Xenophon, Polycrates) or the Latinized name (Isaeus, Herodotus, Plato).

Markussep 17:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a convention needs to be established. The essential elements are the common English name, the Greek name (in Greek letters), and the modern pronunciation (if it is a modern person/thing).

Common English name Following Wikipedia conventions, the common English name has to be established by actual usage in English, e.g. George (not Georgios) Seferis but Yannis (not John) Ritsos.

Greek name This should be in polytonic for words used in Ancient Greek; no need to have both polytonic and monotonic, since the mapping is trivial. If the only difference between the ancient (or katharevousa) name and the modern is a final nu, just put it in parentheses, e.g. Γύθειο(ν)). If the word is given in Greek letters, there is no real need for transliteration; still, for ancient words, it might sometimes be useful if it is often encountered and not obvious, e.g. Hēraklēs as well as Hercules; but why bother with Platon for Plato? Otherwise, for modern Greek, a reversible transliteration is not necessary if the Greek name is given in Greek letters.

Phonetic transcription A phonetic transcription, is, on the other hand, useful: Yíthio not Gytheio (how is an English-speaker expected to pronounce that!), Kalambáka not Kalampaka. The stress accent is important and should be indicated. Ideally, I'd prefer IPA to ad hoc transcription, but I admit that [ˈjiθio] might not be helpful to many readers. If the transcription is the same as the common English name, it suffices to indicate the accent on the English name (e.g. Árta).

Some examples of my recommendation:

• Athens (Αθήνα Athína) -- for modern Athens
• Athens (Ἀθήναι Athēnai) -- for ancient Athens
• Athens (modern: Αθήνα Athína; ancient: Ἀθήναι Athēnai) -- when both are relevant
• Crete (Κρήτη Krētē Kríti)
• Plato (Πλάτων) -- Platon is not necessary
• George Seféris (Γιώργος Σεφέρης) -- not clear that Yorghos Seferis is necessary here, but the stress accent is helpful
• Gýtheion (Γύθειο(ν) Yíthio)
• Iráklio (Ἡράκλειο(ν) Hērákleion)

One thing I'm not sure about: how to visually distinguish the Gytheion case (where the ancient form is the main entry and the modern pronunciation is in parentheses) from the Iraklion case (where the modern form is the main entry and a transliteration is in parentheses). Thoughts? --Macrakis 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My proposal refers only to the article title and the name used in references from other articles. I agree with you that the name in Greek alphabet should be in the first line, polytonic for classic, monotonic for modern Greek. Also a pronunciation guide should be somewhere in the first lines, if necessary. I'm not so happy about accents in titles. Your proposal for transcription of modern Greek looks more like the BGN/PCGN system. It's closer to the pronunciation, when pronounced the English way. I can live with that too, but I like the UN/ELOT system better. BTW the article title doesn't need to be easily pronounced, see for instance Zwijndrecht or Zschopau.

Your other remarks: I know people often use translations of their given names when introducing themselves to foreigners, for instance Russian men called Yevgeniy often call themselves Eugene. I think it's arbitrary: if people are much better known under their anglicized names (e.g. Joseph Stalin, not Iosif Stalin), use that, but otherwise keep it Greek. I don't know about Seferis, amazon has him as George. About places with different names in antiquity than present: I think that except for deserted cities, excavations etc. we should use the modern name for the article title, of course with redirects from the classic name. In the text use the classic name when referring to antiquity, modern when referring to present, no brackets. Irakleio is internationally known as Heraklion, I don't know why. Markussep 08:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

River names

I started moving

• do we want accents in the article titles? I'd say it's OK, as long as there are redirects from accentless names. But we should be consistent in that.
• how do we decide if a name, if it's different from the modern Greek name, is the common name in English? Aliákmon would be Aliákmonas in modern Greek. Markussep 09:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Prefecture names

All

I've been doing some work on the municipality pages and trying to straighten out the connections between them and the prefecture pages. In the process I've noticed the multiplicity of spellings for various peripheries and prefectures. I really don't care what name(s) we use, but if Wikipedia is to gain some credibility we need to develop a common name usage across the pages. This could somehow be located on the main Greece page or portal for reference. Other spellings could be provided within the articles (as is the case), but the primary spelling needs to be the one that spans documents. I would also appreciate common templates for peripheries, prefectures and municipalities. I'm not sure who can coordinate this? Or is it already done? I'm fairly new, so please feel free to correct me. Tim Graff 16:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is a

Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities, I didn't see a descendant project for Greek peripheries or prefectures. There seems to be a common infobox for the prefectures, and there are some bottom templates, for instance for the prefectures in the Peloponnese. I notice many articles are about both a prefecture and the capital of that prefecture, I think it would be better to split that. Maybe you and other people who contribute in this field can start a new project? Plenty of ideas to be taken from other countries' projects. The main Greece page would indeed be the place to find the common name to be used. I propose using the common English name, and if there isn't any, the UN romanization of modern Greek. Markussep

17:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I made a table of the prefectures, their names in Greek alphabet, their romanized name, and their traditional names, if any. See Talk:Prefectures of Greece, and the changes I propose there. Markussep 20:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What about the turkish people at

The Turks of Western Thrace are not mentioned because they are not they main population of Hellas. Besides Greece respects its Turkish minority which has the same rights to the rest of the citizens. In addition Turkey always apears with no Yunan (Greek) minority, and consequently deprives them of a lot of their rights. Petros The Greek 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not entirely true. As a citizen of Turkey and a resident of Istanbul, I, as the majority of Turks living in this country, respect the rights of the Greek minority and proudly say that the relationship between two countries are finally coming to a civilised point (the guilt is equally shared); the issue would be them not being treated as a minority anymore, perhaps? For example, most foreign Istanbul residents are from very old and well-known families living in the best and wealthiest quarters of the city. They are by no means treated as foreign or minority. They have the right to attend their religious services (Every district of Istanbul has more than one church and synagogue, most of them very old and respected structures), they do not have any difficulty finding a job (after Turkey joined the world which is getting more and more globalised/and the improving relationship between Greece and Turkey supported the international job openings). The tension between Greece and Turkey is farce and unnecessary, and perhaps even enforced by other countries. I hope the lack of information above is not clouded by any prejudice. Linus 15 July 2005 23:09

man, i love you. I really do. If you could make that official put that on a website like the Hurriet's I could abolish conscription both in Greece and Turkey tommorow morning. Tell me, is it true that the turkish media mentions that the greek fighter planes violate the turkish airspace each day? (Hint, Greece spends 5% of it's GDP on armaments. Who do you think has an interest in keeping up the arm race? The arms dealers of course) Project2501a 00:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There exists an article on the matter:

Under the heading of "Local Government" the information provided in this article states this: "The 51 nomoi subdivide into 147 eparchies (singular eparchia), which contain 1,033 municipalities: 900 urban municipalities (demoi) and 133 rural communities (koinotetes). Before 1999, Greece's local government structure featured 5,775 local authorities: 457 demoi and 5,318 koinotetes, subdivided into 12,817 localities (oikosmoi)." However, in reading through the Greek embassy information in Warsaw, Poland I noted the following: "Greece is divided into 52 prefectures (nomoi-singular: nomos) which are in turn divided into 147 provinces (eparchies-singular: eparchia). The eparchies are subdivided into 272 municipalities (demoi)." Have the municipalities been further enlarged? Tim Graff 13:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is the status on provinces/eparchies? I just checked the Ministry of Interior website. I can't read Greek very well, but I see no reference to anything but peripheries (perifereies), prefectures (nomarchies) and local government (municipalities/dimoi and communities/koinotites). Fortunately there is some English there, the explanation of the Kapodistrias programme for local government reform. Has this reform been completed already? BTW, they show a subdivision of the Attica periphery as well, into the prefectures Athens-Piraeus, East Attica and West Attica. Markussep 10:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The article falsely states that only far-right political groups want the expulsion of illegal immigrants from Greece, as well as the tightening of Greece's borders. However, the article does not state the fact that the majority of Greeks want the illegal immigrants to leave their country. Greece is experiencing many domestic difficulties that are only compounding in magnitude. Inflation, corruption, illegal immigration, terrorism, globalization are all problems that average Greeks are facing and are dissatisfied with every day.

Naturally, the Greek media is not honest in how it portrays the domestic affairs of Greece. Multiculturalism is something that Greeks find as infeasible to establish in their country being that the Greeks themselves want to maintain their ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic identity. Since when was it a crime for indigenous peoples to preserve their identity and honestly speak out to the problems that their countries are facing internally and externally?

Political correctness in this article should be removed. Greeks are not racist people, but they have every right to defend their identity against anything that threatens it. Moreover, if people keep placing labels on others for speaking out the truth about Greece's problems, then they are ignoring the Greek social environment and the Greek social mentality. Truth should always precede neutrality or any form of political correctness.

For those who wish to place their labels on me ("racist," "Nazi," "fascist," etc.) are unaware of the fact that I am a preservationist and find that the Greeks have every right to maintain their identity not out of hatred, but out of love of their country and their identity. Greek islands are being sold to the highest bidder, and if God forbid a Greek were to speak out against such a thing he/she finds inappropriate, then the Greek is supposedly "evil" for speaking his/her mind.

What was it that Euripedes used to say? Oh yes, "A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts."

If my words sound harsh to those who read it, then I apologize. I have no intention of starting trouble needlessly. However, the truth is the truth whether people like it or not.

- Deucalionite 7/16/05 6:12 P.M. EST

• Do you have some suggestions for "improving" this article? It would probably be more helpful to write some options to the current text and then post it. Then we can discuss what you have written and vote. By the way, I'm from Canada (4th generation German) - the land with no identity except that people love to come here - I guess that suggests a higher identity: we welcome people. I welcome your feedback. Tim Graff 02:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article, thus far, is in a more improved state than it was previously. Go ahead and vote to see whether or not the text placed in the article is to your satisfaction (and the satisfaction of those who will participate in the voting process). As for your comment that your Canadian identity is of a supposedly higher status than the preservationist identity of the Greeks is foolish. To imply that the Greeks are not hospitable to foreigners is a mistake on your part. The Greeks are indeed hospitable, but there is a limit. Greeks are friendly and honest, but they do not tolerate having non-Greeks living in their small nation without their permission. A nation is no different from a home. In a household, a person has a set of rules for those who are invited to adhere to as best as they can. If someone were to violate the sanctity and privacy of your household for no reason, would you be pleased? Obviously not. The same goes for the Greeks who only have a small nation they can call home for which they have died for a thousand times to protect. Does that mean that Greeks are selfish? No. It means that they deserve to maintain their country since they were consistent in preserving their home and their identity. Nothing more, nothing less.

On a sidenote, multiculturalism cannot function in Europe because of the fact that the European mentaliy is different. Multiculturalism, on the one hand, promotes diversity. Yet on the other hand, it promotes the destruction of nation-states that house the various diverse ethnicities, races, cultures, religions, and languages that have defined human diversity for millenia. "Contradictory" is the perfect word that describes multiculturalism. Granted that multiculturalism works in Canada and the U.S., it does not give anyone the right to impose multiculturalism against those who only wish to maintain a homogeneous society.

Pleasure talking to you Mr. Graff. - Deucalionite 7/18/05 2:53 P.M. EST

Appreciate your insights Deucalionite. The text you placed did not change anything for me, but if it improved it for you - great.

"Higher identity"…certainly value laden words…as is “preservationist.” What are the Greeks trying to preserve? I apologize for implying that Greeks were not hospitable. It was not intended. Canada also has people who arrive outside legal channels and these people are mostly okay. Of course, a few bad apples do spoil it for the rest. Are you perhaps suggesting that the vast majority of people seeking refuge in Greece are “bad apples?” I’m sure this immigration issue in Greece is a very complex one. All I know is that Canada has been enriched by the people who have come here. That doesn't mean everything has been good or easy or perfect, but we have grown to understand one another in a way that has made it better for everyone…well, maybe you cannot understand this (just as I may have a hard time understanding the Greek need for preservation).

As for multiculturalism…whenever people say something “cannot” work, they really mean “I don’t want it to work.” Like globalization, a world where people are moving around (call it multiculturalism or whatever) is a reality. Homogenous nation states that can learn from the Canadian experience where diverse cultural identity is maintained within a nation state will make our world a safer, more secure and healthier place for everyone: Greeks, Albanians, Zambians, Chinese and whoever. Also, please recognize that multiculturalism in the US and Canada is different. In the US, people are expected to give up their identity for the greater “American dream.” In Canada, we invite people to become part of a mosaic society where people can maintain their cultural identity and still respect one another as fellow human beings who have the same basic needs. I would still love to hear about the “Greek identity.” Tim Graff 17:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

No Mr. Graff, I do not assume that those foreigners who take refuge in Greece are all "bad apples." However, these refugees simply enter without the consent of the Greek people. Again, Greece is not a big country like Canada or the U.S. Greece has every right to preserve its ethnic, linguistic, cultural, racial, and religious identity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Considering the fact that Greece's neighbors are not as nice as many would think, I can deem the Greeks' notion of self-defense justified. Geopolitics do play a role in how a social mentality functions (to an extent mind you).

Multiculturalism does not work in Europe not because people say "I don't want it to work," but rather because multiculturalism requires that people tolerate each other in nations that indigenous peoples want to themselves. When you force people to adopt multiculturalism, you are not promoting peace and prosperity. In fact, you are reinforcing a people's need to maintain their identity. Moreover, you cannot generalize entire populations by merely assuming that multiculturalism will work. People have different social mentalities and these differences, when forced to tolerate each other, leads to greater negative repercussion. Europe is not the same as Canada. Europe does not need to learn from Canada because it has its own experiences and its own way of doing things. Granted that Europe has made many mistakes in its history, Europe has come a long way. Yet, this does not mean that Europeans (and Greeks especially) are going to forsake what they have built for centuries. Multiculturalism works in Canada. Great. Multiculturalism in Greece? No. Trust me, Greeks have had enough trouble with their neighbors and want to be left alone.

As for globalization, one could say that the Romans (conquerors of the "known world" at the time) were "globalizers" due to the trading that existed within and without the Roman Empire or the "known world." Yet, the meaning behind the term "globalization" nowadays is oriented around world corporate empires established in 1980. These empires could care less about respecting the different cultures, races, ethnicities, languages, and religions that exist on Earth. If there are no national boundaries and people do not care about their identity, then corporate empires will have an easier time controlling the masses and making profits. Globalization may be a reality since 1980, but its days are numbered. That is the reality of it all. Deucalionite 8/11/05 1:46 P.M. EST

"Greek identity"... What Deucalionte implies is the moto "Motherland, Religion, Family" (Πατρίς, θρησκεία, οικογένεια), or that "Greek" identifies automatically with

PS Where else have you heard Special Forces personel brag about beating to death a Pakistani refugee? It happened in Kho island, 'bout a year and a half ago. The saergant responsible for the beatings is still in active duty. And that's one incident, Amnesty International has at least 5 other in it's files, let me know if you want links.

The problem with this conversation is that both speakers(Deucalionite and Project 2501a)represent extremes of thought.

Deucalionite:How do you know "all" or "most" Greeks agree with you?TV polls?(Oooh so reliable...).Or do you read minds in some way?--62.103.130.140 21:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How do I know 62.103.130.140? Well, it is a silly thing called "research." TV polls are not reliable. Tell me something I don't know. My research is based on the historical/social analysis of the Greek mentality, as well as an analysis of the Greek social environment and how various pressures/stimuli are affecting the dynamics of that environment. I am no mindreader, but I know my own people a lot better than what you give me credit for. Do want to make any other unnecessary assumptions? Deucalionite 8/11/05 1:26 P.M. EST

I would not blame Greeks as xenophobous...quite on the contrary, I believe that Greeks are a lot more friendly and open than many of our European friends. I am a Greek living and working in a European country, in a prestigious company and everyday I have to face the ¨fear¨ that people demonstrate me just because I am from a foreign country. Again from my own experience, I know that a foreigner working in Greece will be more wellcomed than I am here. I believe Greeks have the tendancy to think that everything that comes from abroad, whether this is a person, a product, or an idea is a lot better. A tourist would go to Greece and would start speaking in English and almost everybody would try to help him...that is something that you do not really find it everywhere. And that for me, shows that Greeks accept other cultures and are not afraid. Although sometimes, this tendancy we have, is over exagerated. Of course you will find Greeks that they have extreme points of view or very nationalistic...but that you will find it in every nation. To my opinion, Greeks have no fear of the foreigners they just want a control from the part of the government, which, at the end of the day is very logical. Naki 14/09/05

The above is a lie. Your IP

USA, not in Europe like you claimed! REX

15:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Kjo s' është e vërtetë! That's not true, you said (quote): I am a Greek living and working in a European country. And yet your IP is American. It looks like you are not in Europe now. REX 10:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey REX...if you do not know how IP adresses work...its not my fault. First find out and then come and talk. Have no need to lie...leave it here coz that's not the point of the discussion anyway. Naki 15/09/05

And now that I thought of it...please the rest of the people that are reading this excuse me because I know it has nothing to do with our discussion...in order to stop that stupidness of yours REX...check this IP and let me know. Naki 15/09/05

The IP 81.202.235.162 is from Spain. My my, Naqi. You do move around a lot, don't you? A couple of days ago you were in the USA and now you are in Spain. Did you get a friend of yours to make that edit? REX 20:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Michali that it is very common in Greece when we face a problem we tend to blame the foreigners...I just hope that this mentality can change with the time. The more Greeks and the new generations of Greeks travel, work, make friends or have a contact with people from abroad the more they will learn to appreciate the nice things about Greece but also the problems that this country has and the reasons for their existance. Naki 15/09/05

However, the article does not state the fact that the majority of Greeks want the illegal immigrants to leave their country

Could you please cite a country where this is not the case? It is certainly true in the US and all of Europe. I understand Greece has taken on 10% immigrants now, many displaced due to wars. This is much higher than then other southern EU states bordering poorer and unstable regions, certainly higher than Spain or Italy. Spain for example, where I lived in 1990 and 2004, has clearly made the Mahgreb immigrants that once dominated their agriculture and domestic workforce unwelcome in favor of immigrants from Latin American on the other side of the world, due to the reduced social tensions.

Let me get this straight: Greece is of the smallest countries in the EU. Greece has allowed one of the highest per capita number of legal and illiegal immigrants. Greece has the longest non EU border. Greece is the EU country surounded by poor, unstable states that have been engaging in armed conflict about their various borders.

Yet it is some idictment or even noteworthy that polls show that Greeks are concerned about "foriegners" or and illegal immigrants? Was that the point? DaveHM 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Right now we have a jungle of lists of cities, municipalities etc. A collection:

• List of cities in Greece
• List of towns and villages in Greece
• List of municipalities of Greece
  (links to list articles for some prefectures and groups of prefectures)
• Category:Communities of Greece (lists of communities, but actually lists of settlements with various status)

If the Kapodistrias reform has been implemented already, many of these lists are out of date. It appears that municipalities and communities have more or less the same status. Since there aren't so many municipalities and communities left, I think they'll fit into one article List of municipalities and communities of Greece, grouped by prefecture.

About cities, towns and villages: is there a definition of "city" we can use, e.g. population over 20.000? The

I am currently working on an article to cover municipalities and communities of Greece. I have completed the basic background information and will soon post this. I'm thinking of creating a new article that will replace the current

List of municipalities of Greece, but still under the category Lists of Municipalities. This article will also include a table of links showing the relationship between peripheries, prefectures and communities/municipalities. I haven't decided whether the lists of communities/municipalities will continue to reside under the specific prefecture or become a separate location. I'm leaning to keeping them under the prefecture and providing basic info about each one, like population, land area, etc. The challenging part of the project will be to provide more detailed information about each municipality and community. That may require someone with Greek language background since most of the external links are "all Greek to me." Tim Graff

08:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Great!! If the lists of municipalities are not too big, I see no objection to putting them in the prefecture articles. Markussep 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I copied the German Wikipedia list of cities (municipalities over 50.000 inhabitants) and added it to

Provinces (eparchies) are subdivisions of (some) prefectures, but I'm not sure they still exist, for instance the Greek ministry of the interior does not mention them. They may also be traditional small regions. Maybe someone from Greece can comment on that? Markussep 13:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The article

Hellenic Republic is the name Greece is admitted into the United Nations. Colossus 14:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Also the article starts with: "Greece, officialy the...". I don't think that hellenic and greek are liable to cause confusion. Compare to eire-ireland. See also: Names of the Greeks.Michalis Famelis 21:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right that there's no confusion possible there. I do think articles like

Hellenic National Intelligence Service should be renamed. Markussep

22:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is true that the use of both Hellenic and Greek is causing no confusion. However the term Hellenic is more proper as it is the original name of the nation (and whatever is related to it). The name of the state is Hellenic Republic and the name of the country Hellas (like "People's republic of China" and "China"). Petros The Greek 12:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in English, the name of the country is "Greece", not "Hellas". Or are we going to call China "Zhongguo"? Markussep 07:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not really a matter of what is the "proper name" or the "original name" or what is the name the UN uses. It all boils down to wheather "hellas" (and derivatives) can be used interchangeably with "greece" and derivatives without creating confusion to readers that are not accustomed to the matter. Imho, "hellenic" should be used at those instances such as "Hellenic Army" where that is the formal name of the institution and "greek" for articles that generally refer to anything greek (such as

Greek frappé coffee). Apart from all that, using two or more names to refer to a country and/or its people is not uncommon and also is not a greek "priviledge". "Britain" and "UK" are no source of confusion, "Eire" and "Ireland" neither , and I dont think anyone would want the article on Deutsche Welle or Deutsche Oper Berlin be renamed "German Welle" or "German Oper Berlin". Michalis Famelis

10:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I very much support the informed logic of Mr. Famelis on this.DaveHM 19:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This sentence: "Unfortunately, less than a year later, that infrastructure has fallen almost completely into disuse, because of the lack of any coherent plans for their post-olympic use." sounds a little, well, judgemental. Is there abundant evidence for this? Is Greece unusual amongst Olympic host countries for not making heavy use of the stadiums in the next year? Jkelly 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. This occurs everywhere and is always part of the pre-and post Olympic political wrangling.

Even the current text, However, some concerns were voiced by the Greek public regarding the post-olympic useof this infrastructure in the near future is strange because if one was going to toss in a postscript to the 2004 Olympics, it would not be that it would be, and I am not in jest proposing it: "The preprations for the 2004 Olympics saw withering predictions from nearly every press outlet and commentator in the world that the Athens Olympics would be characterized by chaos, if not terrororism, yet the 2004 Olympics were a resounding success.

Exaggeration? I think not.

Dear Athens,

Well, we feel bad. We really owe you an apology...

Sorry about the way we acted. We were paranoid and stupid and just flat out wrong....

We mocked you, ridiculed you, figured you wouldn't be ready...

We were wrong. It was all done and it was beautiful...

We figured beams would be falling on people's heads. Who knew Wrigley Field would be a lot more dangerous?

We were sure every street corner would have three or four terrorists,... Some bozo said, "The only place worse to hold an Olympics would be Baghdad." Please. I guarantee you, we felt a helluva lot safer these three weeks in Athens than we do in L.A. Or Detroit. Or the Republican National Convention.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/writers/08/29/reilly.letter/index.html?cnn=yes DaveHM 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

An anon just added a pro-fascist website to the external links. While the website itself is mostly just articles praising Metaxas, it contains approving links to much more extreme Neo-Nazi websites. I clarified this in the link description, but that should not be taken as my voting that the link belongs here. Jkelly 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted a change by an anon which swapped "Vlach" for "Aromanian". It is my understanding that not all Vlachs are Aromanians (although all Aromanians are Vlachs). Can we get a citatation for the ethnic makeup of Greece used in this article? Jkelly 05:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Over the course of the last few weeks, anons have been adding the adjective Greek (with a wikilink) in front of various places that the Byzatine Empire is mentioned in the article. Is there some other Byzatine Empire out there that we need to differentiate from? And, if there was, shouldn't that instead be discussed at Byzantine Empire? Jkelly 03:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason is because in the Medieval times the empire was known as the Greek Empire (Imperium Grecaorum) or Empire of the Greeks.

Read the excerpt from the article of Byzantine Empire.

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the 18th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus himself was influenced by the rift caused by the 9th century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbours as true Romans

The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum", "Graecia", "Terra Graecorum"

--- Also it's an article referring to Greece and Greece in those times was known as the Greek Empire and not the Byzantine. It's like calling nowadays the Medieval France The Parisian Empire because of the Capetian hub being Paris.

Thank you for your response. Please refer to

Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions and gather consensus. Until the policy changes, or the English-speaking world adopts "Greek Byzantine Empire", however, the usage doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. Thanks again. Jkelly

03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is Human Rights Watch's page on Greece. First of all, this page is a summary page. There are many important things to say about Greece, and they cannot all be inserted here. Discussions, especially paragraph-long discussions, of a single group's concerns should be added to

Wikipedia:Fair use

of a text source. This is hard to determine without knowing how long the original is. This is what I, and others, have been cutting:

Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up a large minority with their own language and culture, their internationally recognized human rights and even their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expression is restricted; several Macedonians have been prosecuted and convicted for the peaceful expression of their views. Moreover, ethnic Macedonians are discriminated against by the government's failure to permit the teaching of the Macedonian language. And ethnic Macedonians, particularly rights activists, are harassed by the government - followed and threatened by security forces - and subjected to economic and social pressures resulting from this harassment. All of these actions have led to a marked climate of fear in which a large number of ethnic Macedonians are reluctant to assert their Macedonian identity or to express their views openly. Ethnic Macedonian political refugees who fled northern Greece after the Greek Civil War of 1946-49, as well as their families who identify themselves as Macedonians, are denied permission to regain their citizenship, to resettle in, or even to visit, northern Greece. But ironically, all of these are possible for the political refugees who define themselves as Greeks. Ultimately, the government is pursuing every avenue to deny the Macedonians of Greece their ethnic identity.

I would like to invite other editors to weigh in. Jkelly 22:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider to this topic (I only have this page on my watchlist to reverse vandalism) I agree with all the points outlined by Jkelly above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see the section "The Macedonians of Greece" on the HRW Publications page at http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe_pub&c=greece —The preceding

I see why it is that you cannot link directly. Apparently this HRW article is available only by paying $7.00 through shop.yahoo.com. That is irritating. It also makes fair use concerns more pressing. How do other editors feel about including a single line raising the issue, with a reference to HRW's "human rights articles for sale" page, and discussing the issue further at Demographics of Greece? I am suggesting this as a compromise, and should not be understood to be arguing that it belongs in this article at all. Jkelly 03:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

JKelly, I have some additional thoughts on this reflecting time in both Greece and Macedonia, as well as a fascination with this region and quite a bit of reading for quite some time and will post a longer analysis here tonight. In the meantime, to give some perspective, please look at the Human Rights Watch page on Macedonia at:

Contrast the 11 year old report on a problem that is 90% solved, to this: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/macedonia/

It is overwhelmingly clear much there are literaly scores of much newerereports on the Republic of Macedonia by Amnesty, Helsinki and HRW, as well as main stream western press that document not only violent repression of Albanians, but repression of local Turks, Bulgarians and others - icluding human rights workers from repected NGO's.

Forget the demographics section, it seems the very first sentence in the main Republic of Macedonia page should read: "Macedonia, a country torn by ethnic strife, extrajudicial killings, state associated paramilitary terror against its massive Albanian minority, refuses to give autonomy to the one third of its population that is Albanian, and is engaged in violent repression."

Is that ok with 209.135.110.55?

Ultimately the pages already completely misrepresent the region both factually and more generally. Anyone who has worked in these countries knows they are a postive dynamo of people engaged in massive cross border investment, employment and friendship.

DaveHM 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Although ethnic

- This is the summary of a publication by the Human Rights Watch [5]

I agree with 209.135.110.55 that Macedonians in Greece should at least be mentioned in the demographics --

Although there is a lot about the names of the Greek nation in this article, and while it is stated clearly that Greeks prefer to call themselves Hellenes and their country Hellas, the name of the arteicle is Greece. Could that possibly change to Hellas? I think it would be better if 'Greece' was redirected in 'Hellas' rather than the opposite! Petros The Greek 13:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. Please review earlier parts of the Talk page. The Wikipedia rule is to use the most familiar English name, so for example we have "Germany" and not "Deutschland", "Japan" and not "Nihon", etc. Greece is by far the most familiar English name. You will find, for example, that in the U.S., Greek embassies and consulates list themselves under "Greece/Greek", not "Hellas/Hellenic". I know there is an old story circulating that "Greek" is somehow not a name of Greek origin, but in the article Names of the Greeks, you will see that it has just as Hellenic (!) an etymology as "Hellenic". --Macrakis 14:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

you know what the most funny thing is? we rave about the macedonia naming and they got a greek (mahaha) name, but we don't for our country on wikipedia. --62.1.235.204 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a so-called reference to a "study" in 2003 on the Greek population, which is not serious. I have left it there, but pointed out that it is not consistent with the official data in the Census and elsewhere. There are no more than 10,15m Greeks recorded in the 2001 Census, and more deaths than births of Greeks since then. The remainder of the population consists of immigrants, and any population increase is entirely due to immigration.Why is there no external link to a source which forms the basis of this paragraph?

Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Mediterranean MIgration Observatory, Athens

I deleted the paragraph added by Deucalionite because it is not backed by sources. Please find sources such as articles in reputed newspapers to substantiate your claims. Wikipedia is committed to a neutral point of view and does not allow own research.

It is now sourced. I am cutting the paragraph here for discussion:

Overall, as a result of illegal immigrants residing in Greece, both nationalist political forces and the majority of the Greek populace are calling for the expulsion of all illegal immigrants and the strengthening of Greece's borders. Outcries against illegal immigration stem from a growing dissatisfaction among average Greeks that encompass the problems Greek domestic affairs are facing today. Illegal immigration is but one of several serious problems that affect Greece. Combined with inflation, political corruption, globalization, terrorism, and unemployment, many Greeks feel that their society is under a period of internal decline and that it is in serious need of reform [6], [7], [8].

This paragraph (like the one that IPs continuously insert about that eleven-year-old Human Rights Watch report) does not conform to Wikipedia:Summary style. Information about minority populations in Greece should go to Demographics of Greece. The above paragraph is also doing an awful lot of speculation from its sources. Where are we supposed to see evidence that a) Greece (or Greek people) are more anti-immigrant than their neighbours and b) that the reason for this has to do with globalization and terrorism? I didn't see evidence for either in the cited articles, which I will admit to only scanning quickly. If the perceived racism/anti-immigrant position of Greek people is one of the most important things to say about the country, it is curious to me that the sources that are used to source this claim are so obscure. Jkelly 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

JKelly, you left a message in my mailbox stating that the paragraph was removed by three separate editors. Congratulations. Throw a party, but drink responsibly. Just kidding. Unfortunately, this shows that there is a lack of consideration by Wikipedia for the sentiments of Greeks in their own country. Where are you supposed to see the evidence? I don't know. Maybe outside of the confines of the world of Wikipedia in cyberspace? Or maybe in the world of current events? I think I am kind of lost in what exactly Wikipedia expects in terms of "evidence" pertaining to this particular subject. Moreover, you misunderstand the content of the paragraph itself. You see, Greeks find illegal immigration as one component that is exacerbating the overall decline in Greek domestic affairs. Greeks are well aware of their overall problems and have every right to vent out their anger towards anything that they feel threatens the social integrity of their country.

Is there a link between illegal immigrantion and terrorism? In certain countries, probably not. In other countries, yes (please do not ignore current events or current social trends for it would sort of offend the French after having many of their cities turned into riot havens [9]). Is there a link between illegal immigration and globalization? Probably not. However, regardless if there is a link or not between illegal immigration, terrorism, and globalization, all three pose as problems to the Greek people. If you are going to talk about Greece, then you cannot exclude the sentiments of the Greeks themselves. You can call the Greeks "racist" and "xenophobic" all you want in your hopes to justify the glories of whatever agenda you support. However, Greeks do not show hatred or dislike unless they have a good reason. To the Greeks, Greece is their only home (of course, there is Cyprus too). They see the illegal immigrants as "invaders." Even if the illegal immigrants did not want to "invade" Greece, it still does not change the fact that they entered illegally without the consent of the Greek people. I am certain that you would not like someone just coming into your house without your consent. However, I could be wrong. Also, those who use sources or state about how the illegal immigrants are helping the Greek economy does not help in explaining how Greeks feel about the whole thing. The Greeks know their own problems better than anyone else. They know their problems and are fed up with all of the years of corruption since the fall of the military regime in 1974. Of course, I am not implying that Greece should become a land of dictators. However, Greece needs to undergo its "catharsis" stage. The country needs to undergo serious reforms that serve the best interests of the Greek people and not the interests of illegal immigrants, foreign political organizations, so-called "humanitarian" organizations or any secret societies (hey, you never know) that could care less about Greece's future.

Did you at least read the Greek article in the sources I placed near the paragraph? If you cannot read Greek, then I can only surmise that you skipped it. Fine with me. However, BabelFish is available and even though the translation process is not as great as many would hope, it can still help you get something from the Greek article. Yes, I know. The Greek media is stereotypical. Tell me something I don't know. Greeks are aware of this too and they perceived the illegal immigrants as "invaders" even before the Greek mass media started with all of the stereotypes.

I could provide more sources if you like JKelly. However, no amount of research can really justify how the Greeks feel right now about their country's state of affairs. Sure, Greece is doing good economically. Yet, that depends on what exactly "good" means in the context of Greek internal affairs. Just leave the paragraph alone. It is more oriented on honesty than neutrality. Later. - Deucalionite 11/18/05 2:37 P.M. EST

Illegal immigrants as invaders? I am seriously troubled to see that some Greeks are trying to justify racist attitudes with this old chestnut of illegal immigration. Let's get some facts straight, before getting involved with opinions:

(1) There is absolutely NO comparison to be made between the French Maghrebi [often second and third generation migrants with French citizenship] rioting about socio-economic exclusion and the peaceful existence of recent immigrant communities in Greece. See the interview with me in Eleftherotypia for some explanation Eleftherotpia 12/11/05

(2) Although most immigrants entered Greece illegally, or semi-legally (with visas bought from corrupt Greek officials, or overstaying tourist visas] some 700.000 immigrants [plus another 200.000 "ethnic Greeks"] have been given legal status since 2002. Their continuous yo-yo movement into and out of legality is caused by the Greek state. It demands more money from immigrants than it does of Greeks (for social insurance and application fees for legal stay), does not impose sanctions upon Greek employers who refuse to pay the social insurance of immigrant workers, and even when all these conditions are satisfied has been unable to process the applications promptly. Read the discussions on some of these points at the website of the Ombudsman for Greece.

(3)All research on immigrants in Greece shows that they have been integrated into the economy and do not create unemployment in Greece. They work in rural areas [as farmhands, carers for the elderly, miscellanous semi-skilled work] and in urban areas [construction, industry, housecleaning and live-in housekeepers, carers for the elderly]. See the survey of Kassimis, for example, on rural areas.news report

(4) Owing to widespread corruption over the last 20 years or more, including the Church, all levels of the judiciary, the Greek state employees, along with the fake economic data of the last government, the Greek economy and in particular ordinary Greeks have serious financial problems. These problems have nothing to do with immigrants, but it is convenient for Greeks to pretend that it is someone else'e fault. Thus, the Greek population in recent opinion polls is extremely hostile to immigrants.

Can anybody cite a source of a recent opinion poll?

Andreas

16:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are two in English: Kathimerini and Athens News MBE --87.202.19.130 22:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(5) The principal excuse given for Greek xenophobia is that immigrants are criminals, unlike the wonderfully law-abiding Greeks. First, although there is a clear link between violent crime and a small number of Russian and Albanian mafia, these people are not even categorised as immigrants: owing to the corruption of Greek officials, almost all high-ranking mafia have Greek passports. The semi-legal/illegal immigrants are mostly poor, politically unconnected workers who just try to make ends meet. Secondly, there are no proper data on crime in Greece. I have explained this 4 years ago to the Greek Police Federation [http://mmo.gr/pdf/publications/publications_by_mmo_staff/Police_Gazette2001_MBE.pdf Crime and Migration (in Greek), that police data are not valid as indicators, but we need accurate information on arrests, prosecutions and convictions of people by nationality and other indicators. I also expressed this position to the Ministry of Justice. In four years, the Greek state has done precisely NOTHING to solve this information deficit. Therefore, we know very little about the causes of crime in Greece. The responsibility for this mess lies with GREEKS who run GREECE, and not with immigrants.

(6) The only terrorists in Greece are Greek, like the former Nov. 17th group. This has nothing to do with immigrants, so again this is Greek nonsense, looking for scapegoats instead of assuming responsibility for Greece. The serious structural problems in Greece are entirely the fault of Greek people, who for too long have failed to manage the country properly and have prioritised personal financial interest over Greece, political parties over Greece, and just about anything comes before Greece's national interests.

Martin Baldwin-Edwards --87.202.16.11 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Blame everything on the Greeks. Can I play the blame game? No? Awwww, no fair. Though I do agree with you that one can blame the Greeks and the Greek state for certain things (especially corruption), you cannot put all of the blame on the Greeks. Even with your facts, you cannot change the sentiments of the Greeks regardless if you find their sentiments as racist and xenophobic. Again, Greeks are simply looking out for themselves. They have a lot of problems to sort out and even though the Greek state has failed to implement good immigration laws to prevent the large influx of foreign illegal immigrants, it still does not change the fact that Greek sentiments should still be recognized about the whole thing.

Let's analyze your facts (more like anti-Greek ranting, which is fine to an extent). No. 1 looks good. There is no comparison. Hmmm. I am sure many Europeans will disagree with you regardless if you disagree with their sentiments on how they perceive immigrants (whether of the first, second, or third generation). Even young people in Greece (not to mention Europe) hold negative opinions against illegal immigrants. If you are such a "humanitarian", then why not consider talking to the young Greeks of Greece and see how they feel about the whole thing? Or don't. Just continue blaming everything on Greece and the Greeks instead of placing blame on Greeks and illegal immigrants accordingly [10]

No. 2 looks interesting. "Legal status" is not exactly as legal as you'd hope it would be (I know, courtesy of corruption in Greece). The governments of Greece, under the administrations of PASOK and New Democracy politicians that can't seem to help serve the interests of the Greek people, gave "legal status" to the illegal immigrants in order to get votes. Moreover, they did it in order to embrace the "wonders" of multiculturalism without the consent of the Greek people (and get away with more power in their hands). Wonderful politicians we have, don't you agree? Greeks in Greece are aware of this unfortunate problem. Again, you can blame the Greek politicians, but don't blame the Greeks themselves (even though they voted for New Democracy hoping that things would change, but the New Democracy government is no different from that of PASOK).

No. 3 looks fascinating. Uh-oh. After checking the link, it looks like your Kathimerini "source" is out of order. Hey, if you have another source Mr. Baldwin-Edwards, then by all means provide it.

No. 4 looks lovely. Though what you are saying does not surprise me. Corruption has been a problem in Greece for 30 years (not 20) ever since the fall of the junta in 1974. Please tell me something I don't already know (and I am sure you will).

No. 5 looks superb. Greek officials doing corrupt things and blaming their actions on illegal immigrants? Oh-no. The obviousness is killing me. However, there have been unreported incidents where illegal immigrants have caused many problems without any involvement from corrupt Greek officials. Again, unreported incidents. Would you like to learn about these incidents? Or would you rather just assume that everything that is unreported is not academic enough for your standards? What was it that Rene Grousse used to say? "Η Αληθινή ιστορία δεν είναι αυτή που μας διδάσκουν" (if you know so much about Greece, then have fun translating a little Greek for yourself, but don't get too carried away, you might pop a blood vessel).

No. 6 looks vivacious. The only terrorists in Greece are Greeks. A half-truth for your information. November 17, I agree, was a formidable terrorist organization. However, many of their members have been captured. There are numerous sources pertaining to such events having transpired. Here is one for you to chew on [11]. Enjoy.

Let's see. Based on what you have provided, it seems that you are minutely a good critic of Greece's problems and an unfortunate holder of the anti-Greek (or pro-illegal immigrant) perspective. No, I am not implying that whenever someone criticizes Greece that the person is anti-Greek. Trust me, you are not the first person I dealt with pertaining to critiques. Yet, you still do not realize that the paragraph that I have written addresses the overall problems Greeks face today. Whether their sentiments are to your liking or not, there is nothing in your multicultural perspective that can force Greeks to change their sentiments. In a sense, Greece is their country and they can cry if they want to. You just have to respect that.

Of course, your name, Baldwin-Edwards, has appeared on many websites and research projects. In your attempts to force Greece to transmogrify itself into a hodge-podge multicultural state, you, in essence, want the distinct identity of the Greeks to die. Isn't that contradictory for a Western European mentality? Worshipping ancient Greece and trying to destroy the descendants of the ancients you can't get enough of. Kind of sad if you think about it.

I know what you are thinking, "Deucalionite has no credentials so I do not care about what the hell he says." Am I close? Do I get a cigar? I prefer Cuban. Anyway, I may not have as many highly-awarded credentials like you, but that does not make me an enemy. My paragraph is only meant to reflect on the sentiments of the Greeks. If you love Greece so much and are awed by its history, then have some respect for Greek sentiments. Even if you disagree with them. It is not as if my paragraph is putting all of the blame on illegal immigrants. Greeks face more problems that your research fails to take into account and yet for all of the critiquing you do, you ignore the one key piece of evidence that is needed in better understanding the social dynamics of Greece, Greek sentiment. If you want to keep blaming Greeks for everything, then have a ball. However, if you think Greeks today are happy in their own native land or that they would agree with your research, then you need a reality check. You need to differentiate between the Greeks you met doing research and the average Greeks that are out there on the field dealing with their problems and begging for solvency. Some "humanitarian" you are. Screw the Greeks over in their own country. Ignore the fact that the Turks do not recognize Greek waters and claim Imia (called Kardak in Turkish), ignore the outrageous demands of Albanians for the "liberation" of Chamerians in Epirus, etc. etc.

Funny thing now that I think about it. I had my paragraph shown on the article and Mr. Graff was nice enough to ask me for an explanation instead of doing what you did with your anti-Greek ranting. He did not have a problem with my paragraph. Now, all of a sudden, my paragraph is "evil" when it only shows how Greeks think about the daunting problems they face in their own country. Well, it is no surprise to me that Wikipedia has the whole English cheerio old bean mentality of "wikifying" anything that does not fit Wikipedian "reality" or the "realities" created by its so-called "researchers." Oh well. It has been 24 hours I believe. Time to put back the paragraph in its rightful place. Nice talking to you. - Deucalionite 11/19/05 10:53 P.M. EST

The poll cited above is good evidence for a high level of anti-immigrant feeling in Greece compared to other European countries. This should be incorporated into the article, but in more neutral language. --Macrakis 22:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm game. I will place my paragraph in the article again and you can go ahead and tinker with it in order to make it more "neutral" (gee, I hope that the meaning of "neutral" in this case is not synonymous with "politically correct"). Anyway, just make sure that if you are going to make my paragraph more "neutral" that it does not cover up the overall honest sentiments all (or at least most) Greeks in Greece share pertaining to the so-called "sensitive" topic of illegal immigration. Later. - Deucalionite 11/21/05 3:29 P.M. EST

I'm game, too. I really doubt that the public's current attitudes toward a single, contentious political issue (illegal immigration, which a 2003 Harris survey (summary) found was the sixth most important issue to Greek voters, in the top two issues for only 6% of them, apparently including Deucalionite) belongs in a summary article about an entire country. But it's in the news nowadays, we'll see after the Paris stuff dies down. I'm hoping the content ends up useful somewhere else, perhaps in an article about current political parties or election campaigns in Greece.--Inonit 21:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made some corrections to Inonit's otherwise very good addition. The recorded Greek unhappiness with immigrants predates the French unrest, but there are contradictions between older opinion polls. As none of the Greek polls seems to have controlled for what exactly was asked, and how it was asked, it is better to rely upon the EU ones -- as Inonit has done. MBE --87.202.19.130 12:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in understanding better why you believe it's preferable to call the organization "European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia" rather than "European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia," given that the EUMC's website unambiguously calls it the latter. See, e.g., [home page] or [About Us]: "The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide ..." (emphasis in original). Shouldn't the organization itself be the authority on its name?--Inonit 13:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, you are right, on both counts! And they are wrong. The official name is EUMC which stands for European Union Monitoring....I was director of the Greek branch in 2002, and can tell you some things about their competence. Normally, one would hope that an institution would know it s own name!!

I will add some small details/corrections to the data on nationalities of immmigrants, as what is there is not quite correct. MBE--87.202.18.67 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This "immigration" section needs to be removed and summerized with perhaps two sentences in demogapics. In france where there is a huge impact of immigration, there is no such section in wikipedia, same with spain, italy, germany etc. This seems to be an agendad driven addition from a couple of weeks ago to advertize a ngo (by an employee) and spins and creates an out of proportion nd out of balance section on thse general pages. I suggest that this information if carried in such depth sould be on pages generally discussing immigration and response throughout Europe.

Here is the text for the Wikipdia UK page within demographics with no sperate subsection: Recent immigrants, especially from the Commonwealth, speak many other languages, including Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. The United Kingdom has the largest number of Hindi speaking peoples outside of the Indian sub continent.'.DaveHM 11:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)DaveHM 11:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Offensive material above I presume that DaveHM is referring to the discussions I have engaged in, and the insertion of links to scientific reports which I have produced. First, let me say that the Mediterranean Migration Observatory is not an NGO, and is part of a state university.We do not advertise: we conduct research and I am offering information to Wikipedia as a public good. Secondly, that I have inserted info from the ONLY official report to the Greek government, which is also available from the website of the Ministry of Interior research institute Hellenic Migration Policy Institute. Thirdly, that I find it offensive and ludicrous that unsourced material on the number of people in Greece is preferred to official data. I can only presume that DaveHM has his own agenda. I am reverting to the scientific material which makes this page on Greece rather better quality. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the changes. I think terms like offensive and ludicrous are shrill and don't belong here. I can appreciate the agenda of the above writer. But as noted by the editor above him, there is the examples in the United Kingdom and France, where problems are more severe and include violence at a very high level, there is a much shorter note on immigration on the Wikipedia article. I think the point is well made that while one can understand Martin's interest in including his own group's name, and positions on immigration, this is typically not done on other wikipedia pages, especially when it drives the pages out of balance.

I understand people take Wikipedia personally, but the use by Martin of offensive to characterise others' edits is problem, it looks like it has occured with several authors now. Statements like the only terrorists in Greece are Greeks , certainly belies reporting by western journalists and indicates some bias. According to the New York Times last year US experts made the accusation that Al Queda has infiltrated into Greece, and there have been transport hijackings by immigrants as well.

The edit is needed, otherwise Wikipedia articles could all be hijacked and dominated by single-issue advocacy (by the advocacy groups themselves). Would changing the main page on the United Kingdom to reflect broad condemnation of its invasion of Iraq, with all kinds of facts and figures on death rates, as well as its questionable policies on immigrants, killings of immigrants by authorties on subways, accusations of human rights violations, etc., be reasonable, to the point where it was nearly the largest section on the UK page? I don't think so.

Martin's simiar reversion to FYROM also ingores long dicusssions on matters pertaining to Greece and agenda driven views here. Sean Dodge 14:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS DISCUSSION

I realise now that the prevailing attacks on the standards of Wikipedia are correct.The remark abour "offensive" is my retort to being told that I am an employee of an NGO: in fact, I am the founder and director of a legitimate academic institution, which has produced independent research advice for the Greek state. One recent report in particular constitutes, along with the National Statistical Service of Greece, the only official data. Prior to that, I noticed that wikipedia was sourcing STUDENT WORKS hosted on our website, instead of serious research by professional.

If you people think it is ok to put unsourced material and undergraduate essays, and also falsely characterise the biographies of people like myself who include our full names and can be contacted, you are simply fools.

The material on immigration is included because some Greeks here insisted on it: I did not do so, but merely tried to improve it.

If this is the best you can do, better forget it. Wikipedia is a failure.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:DaveHM: I agree that the immigration section is much too long. But MBE didn't put it in there to self-promote. MBE and I worked on that material in response to an edit war with User:Deucalionite who kept trying to put in unsourced stuff like "the majority of the Greek populace are calling for the expulsion of all illegal immigrants and the strengthening of Greece's borders" (see, e.g., this edit). I'd just as soon take it out, as would you. I don't know about MBE, but it sounds like he may not disagree. Perhaps User:Deucalionite's ardor has cooled to the degree that we can condense this section and put its best parts in an appropriate subarticle, about demographics, or better yet, politics or elections or political parties. As for FYROM, I suspect a clerical error (there's frequent edit-warring over that link), but in any case, I agree with you.--Inonit 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot to sign in.

I put back the immigration section in order to get some answers. But before anyone starts yelling at me for putting back the immigration section, I just want to simply know why it was removed in the first place. If I am given very good reasons, then I will not argue about the section's removal from the article (though it would be a great injustice to those who want to know about current Greek sentiments toward illegal immigrants).

I think that there is no need to remove the section because its contents were quite neutral (hasn't the section been "wikified" enough?). Moreover, it nicely represents how Greeks feel about illegal immigration. I do not understand why a neutral section about something one cannot ignore in terms of current events should be removed. I checked the information and I did not find anything offensive in the overall section. Moreover, I did not complain or argue about it being neutrally presented in the article.

Inonit assumes that the statements I have made a while ago were unsubstantiated. However, I did substantiate them with sources a while back before getting into an argument with a particular user who just rambled on uselessly. Of course, others eventually provided different sources from what I had and those sources were chosen as evidence for the section's content about Greek sentiment toward illegal immigration.

Eventually, I agreed that the section about illegal immigration be presented in the demographics section of the article in a neutral fashion. Inonit agreed to it too. Again, if there is a really good reason for the removal of the section, then I can understand and I will leave the article alone. If not, then I am afraid that it would best for this section to remain in the article. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/17/05 4:02 P.M. EST

Which other country articles summerize how xxxx peopels feel about immigration? Current Greek sentments toward illegal immigration mirror exactly what you find everywhere. Does the page on the United States mention the armed non governmental anti-immigrant groups which patrol the border? Seems evidently more xenophobic. The question of stating the obvious, every nation has tensions with immigration.DaveHM 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That is the reason why the section was removed? Okay. So, you are telling me that because it is "obvious" that every nation has tension with immigrants, that that is the reason why the section on illegal immigrants was removed? Would you be so nice as to explain to me how "obvious" it is for an average reader to know if tensions are higher in one country or in another if he/she does not know the extent of either positive or negative sentiments a particular people have toward illegal immigrants? All I am asking is a simple explanation.

Think about it this way. Just because something is obvious, does that make it unimportant? Moreover, how many people would find such information "obvious"? Are we assuming that the world has a universal form of common sense? To be honest, common sense is a psychological fallacy being that different people and different cultures see things in different ways. What is common sense in one place, is not common sense in another. What is obvious in one country is not obvious in another. All I am trying to say is that just because something is obvious does not mean it should not be placed in the article. Putting something obvious in an article for the sake of such information being chronicled is not a bad idea. Answer at your best convenience. Over and out. - Deucalionite 12/17/05 7:06 P.M. EST

What is Wikipedia policy? I fail to understand why a detailed and accurate paragraph in the Greece entry, is challenged by DaveHM on the grounds that other countries do not have such detail. Is this the official policy of Wikipedia? I think we need some editorial contribution here, not random opinions. As fas as the current content is concerned, it is unreferenced and contentious. Who says there are 1m immigrants in Greece? Who says they are mainly illegal? [this is not the conclusion of my report]. Who says they are "part-time" and what the f* does that mean anyway?

Given that we managed to write a section that everybody accepted as neutral and accurate, what was the point of deleting it? Again, this needs Wikipedia editorial control...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have some agreement with all, but it seems some disagreement with all. I agree with Martin that the section we wrote was neutral, accurate, and not seriously disputed, even by Deucalionite, which I admit I would not have predicted (I am definitely wrong sometimes). I also agree with DaveHM that the material about immigration should be deleted and put into an appropriate subsidiary article. We've got only 32K (or so) to describe an entire country. Taking a precious paragraph or two of that summary article and allocating it to one current political issue that, according to a 2003 Harris survey, only 6% of Greek voters see as one of the two most important issues facing the country, is disproportionate. NPOV content can be POV if it's out of proportion -- i.e., NPOV involves not only the material included but the decisions about what to include and what not to include. Where are our 2-3 paragraphs about each of the other five issues that Greek voters currently find more important than immigration? Probably in some other article, which is where this belongs too, in my view. Good work though it is.--Inonit 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of seeming self-interested, I should point out to Inonit that Greece is not only about Greeks. When some 10% of the population consists of non-Greeks, most of whom arrived since the 1990s, is this not relevant to the country? Incidentally, on the wikipedia page for my own country of Wales, there is a massive entry on different nationalities living there.

Besides the above point, you have failed to deal with my point that what is currently written about immigration is highly partial and misleading, as well as inaccurate. If this is not dealt with in the next few days, I will revert to what was properly written with my contribution. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I should phrase more carefully. Of course I think that some mention of Greece's current ethnic makeup makes sense -- I'm not trying to sanitize Greece of its non-Greek population. What I thought was disproportionate about what we wrote earlier (just to make sure we're thinking of the same content, I'm thinking of, say, this version) was our (in my view excessive) detail about public opinion and current political wrangling in Greece as regards those demographic changes. I see when I re-read what I wrote above that I might not have been very clear about that. The information about immigration as a demographic reality made sense to me -- the information about immigration as a political issue seemed out of place when there wasn't proportional discussion of other political issues. And in my view shouldn't be.--Inonit 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been puzzled about the status and subdivisions of Attica. If I understand the Greek ministry of the interior correctly (my Greek is very shaky), Attica is a periphery (Περιφέρεια). It is subdivided into four prefectures (Νομαρχιακή Αυτοδιοίκηση): Athens, Piraeus, West Attica and East Attica. However, some prefectures (Athens, Piraeus, and outside Attica also Drama, Kavala, Xanthi, Evros and Rhodope) are called differently (Νομαρχιακό Διαμέρισμα), and grouped into Νομαρχιακή Αυτοδιοίκηση. Is this correct? If it is, this should be reflected in the various articles about the subdivisions of Greece. Markussep 12:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you expand this article

Why does it say Hellada formely Hellas? Arent the names interchangeable?

I see that this page is now little more than an advertisement for tourism, with little factual information or critical analysis. Maybe we can add a small paragraph, explaining that all modern Greeks care about is MONEY. --87.202.25.88 17:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is

etiquette. Thanks. El_C

18:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you. The page is free for Greeks to fuck up, right. Keep up the good work. --87.202.25.88 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Those phrases show what kind of person you are...And you will not tell us what is "nationalistic" and what is not. Greece belongs to the Greeks.

Everyone must cease immediately from

edit summary for details. El_C

18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag. It appeared that it was placed due to issues with the ugly formatting of pictures. Since I see no problems with the formatting now, I removed it. Since the page has been contentiously edited I just wanted to explain my removal. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the fact that a formed King of Greece still claims the title be mentioned in the infobox? I think so. Pelegius, not having logged in.

As a matter of principle, infoboxes for countries aren't the proper place to report claims of Greek citizens to the title of the King of Greece. It is clear in the specific articles about history and his person, what the situation is, therefore it doesn't aid the reader's understanding to include any other such entry. Donnerstag 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that some time in the last couple of months the sports section was removed. The article's length is definitely a concern, but I am unsure that cutting that section is the best way to trim it. Thoughts? Jkelly 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sport in Greece is already covered in the article Culture of Greece. It wouldn't hurt to write something about sport under the culture header, I guess. Markussep 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This time the anon was posting from an IP address previously used by

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Greece/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following