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.

I did not find this phrase, probably deleted in the meantime   Andreas   ^(T) 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording such as unattributed "there are many who believe" statements are not allowed in Wikipedia [ [1]].

HELLAS

1

- What happened to all the culture that Greeks have stolen from Albania? Music? - What happened to all the Albanian population that is living in Greece? Arvaties, Cham, imigrant Albanians, and the so called ethnic Greeks from Albania? who in real life are Albanians. - What happened to all the land Greeks have taken from Cham Albania and Macedonia which you people modified and make it look yours? Does the words Çameria remind you people of something? 86.124.28.175 12:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

2

I agree, Greece is nothing but a conglomeration of many peoples and lands - the Great powers handed them vast territories that belong to Albania, Macedonia and Turkey. When greece was independent, the very term "greek" did not even exist - those inhabitants that were brainwashed into thinking their greeks were actually Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romany, and Arabs. As Greek imperialists expanded this so-called "democracy", they conqured Macedonian lands and now have over 1 million Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia occupied by the Fascist Greek Government.

3 (Answer)

The most dangerous propaganda is the propaganda of ignorance and this goes to both users above. The problem is, many nationals in the Balkans have an inferiority syndrome over Greece and reminds me of the inferiority syndrome many nationals (including Greeks) have over the United States. This is acceptable in societies to the point that generalized remarks like "Greece is nothing but a conglomeration of many peoples and lands", "Greeks have stolen from Albania" or "what do Encient Greeks have in common with Modern Greeks" etc. are not made.

It's like Chemistry being taught by an English Language teacher (people state remarks without having any knowledge on the subject). The same goes with remarks like "ALL Americans are stupid", "ALL Americans are murderers" etc. etc. just because someone watched a movie or because he judjes all Americans by the acts of their Government. Please lets get serious. Talk about things you know, not about things that just happen to make you feel better

Especialy about the Macedonia matter it's a very long talk and history does not lie [and in this particular case it's written by the winners, except that Scopjians (FYROM nationals) recognize the same winners (!) as their herittage too...] -- kompikos 3:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

4 (Answer)

• This kind of indiscriminate nationalistic rhetoric is not helpful. Like in many other places in the world, Greek society has absorbed and assimilated other cultures over the centuries, partly by peaceful and partly by violent means. At the beginning of the 20th century, with the advent of nationalism and the linguistic definition of ethnicity, Greece has acquired territories inhabited mainly by non-Greek speaking populations, but other nations have acquired or retained territories inhabited mainly by Greeks. All this is amply documented in Wikipedia and otherwise. And yes, Greece had at least two episodes of Fascist (or similar) rule. Also, ignorance about some aspects of history is present in today's society, Greek or other. Wikipedia may be a means to improve this situation if editors make an effort to provide information in an impartial and objective way.
  • 'When Greece was independent, the very term "greek" did not even exist': of course the term existed, we all know that Greek culture once had been one of the most important in the world. In the 19th century, the Western word "Greek" was considered equivalent to "Hellenic", whereas Greeks called themselves either "Romans" (Romii), or, the more educated ones, "Hellenes" (Ellines). This could refer either to the mother tongue, Greek, or to the membership in the Greek orthodox church. In this sense, many Albanian, Aromaninan, and Slav-Macedonian speaking people regarded themselves as Greek (Romii).  Andreas  ^(T) 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In the case of Macedonia, Greeks favoured a religious definition of ethnicity, whereas Bulgarians and Slav-Macedonians favoured a linguistically defined definition.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is getting too long -- especially the History section. The information there should, I think, be in the more specific sub-articles, e.g. History of Greece etc. What do others think? -- Macrakis 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I suggest moving a lot of the detailed material here into the appropriate sub-articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. Jkelly 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Sections gives us a guide as to what sections should and should not be present. Jkelly 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, all these sections seem to loose themselves under a variety of rabmling entries. All seems too wooly. Key issues should include the role of certain sections of the Greek media in running the country (a seemingly tabboo subject in Greece); corruption (Greece is rated as one of the most corrupt in the west); demography (Greece has one of the lowest population growth rates in the world - occasionally dropping), the impact of the Diaspora; the country's defence budget (4.5% of GDP!); the country's positive impact in southeast Europe (top investor and hosting foreign workforce)... kai ta loipa, kai ta loipa... Politis 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Jkelly 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria freed themselves from the Turkish rule and actively become conspiring against the Macedonians displaying territorial aspirations on their land. These indigenous states all became in different ways stalking horses for the aspirations of the European Great Powers. The so-called "Macedonian Question" appeared which is nothing else but a competition for a new conquest of Macedonia by their neighbors. The Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs employed many weapons in this conflict. They included the opening of schools in an attempt to inculcate a particular linguistic and confessional identity, the control of ecclesiastical office, influence over the course of railway building, diplomatic attempts to secure the ear of the Turkish Sultan. The Greeks and the Bulgarians begun sending guerrilla bands into Macedonia to and use terror to "convince" the population of its "true identity". But the Macedonians strove to develop their own national consciousness and begun organizing themselves for fight against the Turks at the same time, a process that their neighbors tried everything to interrupt. Thus, the nineteenth century is a period of growing national awareness among the Macedonian people and their quest for free and independent Macedonia.

86.122.29.12 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we don;t need any original research to see the corruption and nationalism of Greeks. Just look at the way the pages are written: no proper references, classic nationalistic POV, refusal to accept the correct official data.... Basically, the WHOLE PAGE IS A DISGRACE—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.17.70 ( talk • contribs)
  • You really have a big problem with Greeks... Honestly I can't understand why! Where ru from? Let me guess somewhere in the Balkans? You know what mate? Just get over it and accept the fact that with the way and language that you are trying to put forward your arguments will never be heard by anyone serious...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.92.255 ( talk • contribs)

• In this article Salonica is mentioned as part of so called Greece in the Byzantine period. First of all the southern part of Macedonia was not apart of Greece at that time so I don't understand why the city is mentioned. When you talk about world war I you forgot to mention how Greece took over the southern part of Macedonia and changed everything that was Macedonian into Greek including the first and last names of the people. A lot of the people that were brought from Turkey were placed in the homes of the Macedonians who left the southern part of Macedonia in search for freedom. The same people to this day are not allowed to enter todays so called Greece. This is a fact.
  • True, but Greece did not exist per se, during the Byzantine Period (nor did any other nation: the concept of "nations" only dates from the 18th c.) The region of Macedonia was a Byzantine thema (province) though. Also, the southern part of the Macedonian region was Greek prior to WWI, a fact that you can verify by opening a history book. Please try to avoid posting inaccurate information.
  • To what Macedonia exactly are you refering too?? Because if you mean the country today recognized as the Republic of Macedonia, I'm sad to inform you that at the Byzantine period neither the country nor the Slavic tribes that moved there on the 4th century A.C. existed. Today these people are who call themselves Macedonians. The only Macedonians that existed before, during and after the Byzantine rule, where the mainly Greek-speaking inhabitans of the Byzantine thema (province). Those people spoke Byzantine-Greek which is an evolved form of Hellenistic-Greek, which is an evolved form of Macedonian-Greek, which is a mix of Classical Greek and the Macedonian (doric or cyrilic) dialect. Why people tend to disturb EVERYTHING in recorded history ??(and it is NOT recorded by Greeks either) -- kompikos

This Demographics in the Greece article are Fabricated, some person/s insist on removing ethnic greeks from the Demographics of Greece. Here is what the article states at present

Estimates regarding the ethnic makeup of Greece vary widely; immigrants who are not ethnic Greeks make up somewhere between 2% [5] and 8.5% [6] of the country's residents. Immigrants who are ethnic Greeks may make up about 2% of the population. The main minorites include Turks, Macedonian Slavs, Pomaks, and various Roma groups. A number of religious minorities exist, including the Muslim minority in western Thrace, which makes up about a third of that region's population.

Firstly the estimates regarding the ethnic makeup of Greece do NOT vary widley at all, all contemporary encyclopedias and statistics show a similar result, according to the CIA World Factbook 2006 Greece's demographics are Greek 98%, other 2% [2].

immigrants who are not ethnic Greeks make up somewhere between 2% [5] and 8.5% [6] of the country's residents

Secondly immigrants who are not ethnic Greeks DO NOT make up somewhere between 2% [5] and 8.5% [6] of the country's residents, if the individual who quoted this actually bothered to read the statistics properly, they would've seen that the CIA World Factbook on Greece states [3] that the Net migration rate is 2.34 migrant(s) PER 1,000 population, not 2% - 8% of the countires population. Struscle 06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SO NOW THERE ARE NO NON-GREEK IMMIGRANTS IN GREECE? THIS IS THE USUAL GREEK RACIST AND NATIONALISTIC CRAP. THERE ARE 8% NON-GREEK IMMIGRANTS IN GREECE, AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NET MIGRATION RATES. I SUGGEST YOU PUT THE PAGE BACK AS IT WAS.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.26.243 ( talk •  contribs) .

The Greek Government has been supressing its minorities for years. There are around 1 million Albanians, 1 million Macedonians and probably another million Turks, Vlachs and Romani in Greece. Of course "official" statistics do not record this because Greece is a racist state which has come under the scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a load of other international Orgnisations.

I still can't believe that you guys think that the very blood of pericles runs through your veins - your nothing but a mixture of Slavs, Albanians and Turks. Wikipedia is a joke publishing the propaganda espoused by these Greek terrorists

Please adopt a much more civil tone here at Wikipedia. Jkelly 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A civil tone is not appropriate for liars and cheats. There are NOT, REPEAT NOT, 98% Greeks in Greece, so just stop this crap. The American datasource is not reliable and you should use Greek state data. Of course, we all know the real reason Greeks here want to use the CIA Factbook -- because it suits their nationalistic POV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.26.243 ( talk •  contribs) .

If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, being civil is mandatory. In the future, refrain from name-calling and accusations. Jkelly 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User Jkelly is incapable of behaving responsibly and has removed the correct edit of another user. THe LIES AND FALSEHOODS being pished through on the Greek pages are a disgrace, and show that Greeks are not fit to be members of the European Union. THe correct data from the 2001 Census and official reports have been put on these pages by me and others time and again, and Greek nationalists have decided to remove them. So, once again, THERE ARE NOT 98% GREEKS IN GREECE SO STOP THE CRAP. I have tired of putting links to official reports when idiots here remove them. Just grow up and learn how to make correct arguments, instead of the childish GREEKS ARE WONDERFUL AND CLEVER mentality.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.17.146 ( talk •  contribs) .

JKelly is out of line - this is nothing but propaganda and lies - Like any other Balkan country Greece has a multitude of minorities. Step back into line JKelly and stop peddling this Greek extremist propaganda

How about we focus on real issues like the ongoing Turkish genocide of millions of Kurds and end the childish rant? If Greece is so bad then why do 10's of millions of tourists go there to enjoy themselves each year? -- Xenophonos 06:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Xenophonos: Where the F**K did you get your info from? You obviously must live in "la la land" to say that that there is a Turkish genocide of Kurds. In case you don't know, there is a Kurdish terrorist organization called the PKK. They hide in mountains in Turkey and kill whatever Turk goes by. Over 200,000 Turks have died because of the PKK, and the number grows everyday! I have great sympathy for you if you support terrorism - I would never support terrorism in Greece and call it a Greek genocide campaign! Get your facts straight!

• • Mr. 87.202.17.146, please calm down and sign your comments. I'd like to know who we're talking to and where you are from. You sound like a nationalist teenager who has just learned something "bad" about Greece's past from a grandfather who was wronged somehow, and is taking out his anger on an ecnyclopedia website. Relax, dude. And stop assuming that all contributors to this article are Greeks. The reason the official data states 98% of the population as ethnic Greek is because the majority of immigrants are undocumented. Everyone in Greece knows it and the government does not hide it that there are an estimated 1 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, equivalent to 10% of the population. However, just as any other country on the planet, only citizens and legal resident aliens are included in official census figures. Therefore, your rants that "Greece doesn't belong in the EU" are obsolete. The article clearly addresses this issue by noting that undocumented immigrants are not included in official figures. Now quit being such a baby, and try and contribute constructively. Skyduster 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you deny the Kurdish Genocide?!?? It has been going on for years! Just like the Armenian Genocide! And stop posting propaganda links. YOU are the one here who is racist, because YOU put all Greeks in one group, calling ALL Greeks Racist and Nationalistic. There you go, fellow, you just proved yourself to be an angry teenager, just like Skyduster said. 80.217.144.31 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article said "In particular during 2005, Greece was the top tourist destination amongst Americans." I removed this statement, which is patently false. I couldn't find 2005 statistics, but U.S. government statistics for 2003 show Greece in 27th place for 2003, and 23rd place using the max of the last 10 years' tourism. It seems unlikely that in two years Greece increased its tourism enough to match Italy (#5, 460% more tourists), the UK (#3, 1010%) or Mexico (#1, 5900%). -- Macrakis 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

it's obviously bogus. most of the english speaking tourists are british. maybe someone can't tell the difference. -- Fs 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's defintely bogus. The most popular foreign countries for Americans are Canada and Mexico, whilst Americans make up only around 5% of all tourists who visit Greece, according to statistics that were once accessible through GNTO/EOT's website. Good job picking that up. Skyduster 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

- What happened to all the culture that Greeks have stolen from Albania? Music? - What happened to all the Albanian population that is living in Greece? Arvaties, Cham, imigrant Albanians, and the so called ethnic Greeks from Albania? who in real life are Albanians. - What happened to all the land Greeks have taken from Cham Albania and Macedonia which you people modified and make it look yours? Does the words Çameria remind you people of something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.114.51 ( talk • contribs) 86.124.28.175 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As the Greek state expanded, it came to own territory with many different ethnicities living there already. The Greek state came to control the land the same way that all countries have, by coercive means, and over time, those people living there either assimilated or had to leave. This is nothing new... and yes, I've heard of Cham Albanians. I have a question for you; have you ever heard of Greeks from the Pontus, and what happened to them? -- Xenophonos 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The development of the Greek alphabet from the Phoeniciian one is acknowledged by the Greek government [4], Encyclopedia Britannica [5], [6] Andreas 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Greek alphabet, the Greek alphabet is the first true alphabet in the sense that it includes vowels and consonants. In this way the Greeks adopted and modified symbols of the Phoenician script and not an alphabet. I would prefer a citation from an authority in lingustics and not just the government or Britannica, but not being an expert in the field, I cannot provide any. Donnerstag 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really rather simple: The term "alphabet" is used in two different senses. The traditional and most widely accepted sense of the term "alphabet" is that which includes the Phoenician script, as well as all the other modern Semitic scripts (everybody talks of the Hebrew alphabet, the Arabic alphabet etc.) Used in that sense, the Greeks very very clearly adopted and modified the Phoenician alphabet. No doubt at all. - There is a second, more technical and narrower sense of the term "alphabet", used by some linguists in this specialized field, among them the authors of an eminent recent reference work (Daniels et al., The World's Writing Systems). These authors contrast "alphabets in the narrow sense" with two other classes of writing systems, called "abjads" and "abugidas". Used in this sense, the Phoenician script is not an alphabet, and the Greek one is the first. Note that this doesn't imply that the "true alphabets" are in any way more advanced or better than the other two classes. Lukas Lukas ^{(T.| @)} (faking my own signature because the server keeps throwing me out.)

The articles Greek alphabet and History of the alphabet have references. Babiniotis in Συνοπτική ιστορία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας talks about the "Φοινικική γραφή" (p. 76) and gives more details on pp. 80-82: Έτσι οι Έλληνες τροποποίησαν, συμπλήρωσαν και, κυρίως, μετέτρεψαν το φοινικικό αλφάβητο σε φωνολογικό, πράγμα που αποτελεί και την πιό σημαντική καινοτομία σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα. Andreas 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC), information by User:Macrakis

If you want more Greek references, there's a chapter by A. Kontogiannis, in: M. Kopidakis (ed.), Ιστορία της ελληνικής γλώσσας, Athens 1999, ISBN  960-201-122-X. Lukas ^{(T.| @)} 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, synoptically, what is the evidence a) Greek alphabet evolved from Phoenician and not Linear A, Linear B, or Cypriot which predate Phoenician, and have clear correlations with the Greek alphabet, and b) what is the evidence Phoenician did not evolve from the previous.

Look at the shapes of the letters,their names, and their order in the alphabet, they are very similar between Greek and Phenician. That's why Phenician was included in the table. Linear A was not Greek anyway. Linear B is a syllabic script with completely different shapes. The Phoenician alphabet evolved from Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Linear B seems to be unrelated to Egyptian writing. A table of corrspondence between Hieroglyphs and Hebrew is found at Middle Bronze Age alphabets Andreas 16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but not only are the shapes not "completely different" between Greek and Linear B, but there is clear correlation. You can view all mentioned scripts at www.ancientscripts.com. Linear B script is found in mainland Greece and has symbols that easily correlate, and can be considered predecessors to tau, alpha, digammo(F), phi, theta, omicron, psi, delta, upsilon, pi, xi, rho, etc. Furthermore, Linear B is clearly a descendant of Linear A, and your mention that Linear A is not Greek is false, as of this moment, the question is inconclusive & Linear A is undeciphered. I agree that there are clearer correlations between Phoenician and Greek, than Greek and Linear B, however I have yet to see evidence both Phoenician and Greek did not develop from Linear B. The previously mentioned site contests Phoenician derived from proto-Sinaitic (which derived from hieroglyphic), though, average date ranges for Linear B and proto-Sinaitic are 1350 BC and 1500 BC, respectively. Not so far apart.

According to same site, I am expected to believe that the Phoenician "F" symbol ("he") derived from a stick figure and not from the symbol third to bottom in the "e" column, of the Linear B script on ancientscripts.com. Common sense dictates this version to be more likely; "he" is not the only example. Observe "aleph", "daleth", "res" as the most striking examples of Phoenician characters with far closer Linear B counterparts than the proposed proto-Sinaitic ones.

The discrepency in position, or sound can find an explanation in the Greek "dark ages". It is not unlikely, Greeks of the archaic period rediscovered the Mycenean Linear B symbols altering, and assigning different phonetics to them, since the Linear B writing system came out of use during the dark ages. I sincerely hope there is no "agenda" in interpreting the above information, and I am looking for an expert to analyze this argument, before I change related articles.

I would also like the above information to be disputed with conclusive evidence and references, and the questions I put forth in the previous post to be answered adequately. a) what is the evidence Greek alphabet derived from Phoenician not Linear A, Linear B, or ancient Cypriot... b) what is the evidence both Greek and Phoenician did not evolve from Linear B. And I would add, that the average date range of Linear A is 1600 BC (older than proto-Sinaitic). I am not able to find a clear representation of the Linear A symbols to make a comparison, though I suspect a valid question to be, did Phoenician derive from Linear A. I am skeptical that Greek evolved from a foreign script when traces of Linear B existed in the mainland, and correlations exist. Phoenician influence extended via trade, but the Linear A writing Minoans, who heavily influenced Mycenean Greece, traded centuries before the Phoenicians. Minoan contacts may have served as a transfer point for Linear B to North Africa. Perhaps the issue is ambiguous, whatever the Greek government point of view may be. I hope I've been concise and clear in my argument.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.42.109 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation and open-ended discussion. WP reports the mainstream positions (and prominent minority positions) of serious researchers. I am not aware of a single serious scholar who considers Linear B and the Greek alphabet to be related, or who denies that the Greek alphabet derives from the Phoenician. Are you? (And I don't mean newspaper articles or popular magazines like Davlos.) -- Macrakis 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Country entries should reflect a country's political dynamics, socio-economic factors, defence and security issues and foreign relations. Also of interest are media issues. Politis 13:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But, all of that could be very well adressed exitensively in sub-articles such as History of Greece, History of Modern Greece etc. Only a summary of these sub-articles should be included in this main article. -- Michalis Famelis 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevent material at Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Jkelly 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The history section is already huge; this article is about the country. See wikipedia country guidelines, Italy is a good example. Politis 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the internationally recognised name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is changed to Republic of Macedonia? This dispute is going on for 15 years and it has not been resolved. Until it IS resolved, everyone should stick with UN, EU and NATO adopted name for the country. This is as NPOV as it can get. -- Avg 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The name you have invented: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (and especially: "FYROM")doesn't exist, expect in Greek propaganda.

The reference to my country (which name is Macedonia) which should be used only in UN is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", while it is clear that anybody may use its own name. We (Macedonians) accept to negotiate and explain to you ("Greeks") why is our name Macedonia, but we do not accept to change our name, just because, you want that.

On the contrary, I think that your name ("Greeks") is not appropriate, because you are mixture of nations, such as Macedonians (like me, who are geneticly majority in southern Macedonia, especially in Voden, Lerin, Kostur and Kukus), Athenians, Thesallians, Albanians, Armenians, Jews, Turks (etc....) who established their country in 1821 (just 100 years before us and thus have some adventage which they are (ab)using) and took the name which Romans gave to Danaians (as we named you before, such in the times of Alexander the Great, which you very like).

Just to mention that you are reffering to some times from before 24 centuries, WHILE at the same time you forget to remember 50 years ago, when Greek language was almost non existant in sothern Macedonia, and half of "Greeks" which inhabit it now (and TODAY insist that are Macedonians) where somewhere in Asia Minor or Black Sea.

That statement can't be more false. How can Greeks not have lived there if they fought the Germans (WWII) there? And how can you identify yourselves with Alexander the Great when you ("Macedonians") arrived in the southern Balkans at 600 A.D? You have no right to call yourselves Macedonians if the Greeks do not, because the Greeks are the historical Macedonians. And it is spelled Thessalians, btw. Alexander did not name the Greeks Danaians, because he called himself Greek. The entire statement is FYROM propaganda which you are taught about in school. To be honest, you began calling yourselves Macedonians the latest 30 years, before that the entire issue was non-existant. And you began to call yourselves Macedonians because of the "Golden Age"-syndrome (Poor countries look back at history), but since you have no history (You can't claim Bulgarian history because that is already taken by the Bulgarians), you take Greek history.

6000+ text has been found in the historical region of Macedon. Not a single one is written in anything but Greek (Which means: Everyone of them is written in Greek). Sure, the Greek dialect the ancient Macedonians used might have been a little different from Koine Greek, but so was all Greek dialects. Lakonian Greek was not like Attic (Compare: Thalatta-Thalassa), yet they are both seen as Greek. Why should Macedonian Greek differ? All ancient Macedonian names but one (Which has Illyrian roots) are Greek. It is clear that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, and I know what the most common response is: "They adopted the Greek language". This statement is very wrong, because names are a great way to see language. All their names mean something in Greek. The cities which Alexander and his Diadochoi (Greek word: Sucessors) founded was in Greek names. Also, they could not have adopted the Greek alphabet, because if they had, they would write like the Thracians and Illyrians, using Greek letters but Thracian/Illyrian words. Like I do now, I use Latin letters but English words.

Besides, the ancient Macedonian Kings claimed Greek heritage, both before Phillip II and Alexander the Great, and after them. The Greeks considered them to be Greeks, they let them participate at the Olympic Games, and whilst only a few Macedonians participated at 480 B.C. and none before that, is of the simple fact that they had yet to come in to contact. You see, Macedon is surrounded by high mountains. Yet one of the first times the ancient Macedonians and southern Greeks met, they understood each other. Alexander I (Not the Great, he was III), called himself Greek, spoke Greek and participated at the Olympic Games. Herodotus called them Greeks, the Persians called them Greeks (Yauna Takabara: Greeks with the hat), Titus Livius called them Greeks. Almost everyone but Demosthenes called them Greeks. In our day, only a few historians say that they were not Greeks, the majority of them being(Suprise surprise)FYROM:ians. The ancient Macedonians had Mycenean customs, the ancient Macedonians was EVEN counted in the Greek Fleet!

Now, the southern Greeks had nothing to gain by calling them Greeks. If you look at a map showing Greek colonies, you will see but a few in Macedon, even though it is a fertile land and is close to southern Greece. Yet it was not colonized, while even Spain was. Why? Because the ancient Macedonians was considered Greeks, so they could not be colonized.

And now, I ask you, what do we have against this? Some persons claiming to live in the historical region of Macedon, while they actually live in ancient Paionia? And their only arguments being: "You can't say that they only wrote in Greek because there is not enough evidence", yea, like there is tons of other texts, inscriptions and coins written in something else? And then of course, the "genes", which has been proven wrong by other scientists dozens of times. And little Demosthenes, an enemy of Phillip II who wanted nothing else but see Athens rise to power again. I wonder what is the easiest: To unite the southern Greeks against fellow Greeks, or against Barbarians? Hmmm.... 80.217.144.31 07:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are of course right, but that's not the issue, the country is officially called Republic of Macedonia and this is how is called by UN. Wikipedia should use official names no matter how "wrong" or "unfair" they are. (EDIT: the official name is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia", but not "F.Y.R.O.M." either) -- AdrianTM 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Official Country Names

Surprisingly, the Official Country Names are not observed in wikipedia articles. For example, the Official websites of EU, UN and NATO are shown bellow:

Official EU website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Macedonia gained its independence peacefully from Yugoslavia in 1991, but Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered a Hellenic name and symbols delayed international recognition, which occurred under the provisional designation of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." In 1995, Greece lifted a 20-month trade embargo and the two countries agreed to normalize relations. The United States began referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, in 2004 and negotiations continue between Greece and Macedonia to resolve the name issue. Some ethnic Albanians, angered by perceived political and economic inequities, launched an insurgency in 2001 that eventually won the support of the majority of Macedonia's Albanian population and led to the internationally-brokered Framework Agreement, which ended the fighting by establishing a set of new laws enhancing the rights of minorities. The undetermined status of neighboring Kosovo, implementation of the Framework Agreement, and a weak economy continue to be challenges for Macedonia. 86.124.28.168 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Official UN website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official NATO website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

It would be useful if those editors who would prefer to use other names like, Republic of Macedonia, or Macedonia could also provide their sources. Until then, let's stick to the above Official Country Name. Odysses (☜) 09:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.vlada.mk/english/index_en.htm
• http://www.president.gov.mk/index_e.asp

However, this discussion is out of place here, it belongs to Talk:Republic of Macedonia Andreas 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done Andreas, you reference two links from FYROMian government! Of course they want to be called Republic of Macedonia! This is the FYROMian POV. And the discussion is not out of place, as long as there are people who keep changing the name FYROM to Republic of Macedonia on this page. Once again, the NPOV is FYROM. -- Avg 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The history of the territory and people of the FYROM was part of the history of the larger region of Macedonia until the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), when the region was divided among Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Macedonia had been a province of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 500 years, but by the early 20th century the declining empire was losing its grip on the region. In the 19th century the empire lost one after another of its Balkan possessions, and by the end of that century only Macedonia, Albania, and Thrace remained under Ottoman control. After the Congress of Berlin (1878) had created a virtually independent Bulgaria, which became completely independent in 1908, and enlarged Greece and Serbia to the borders of Ottoman Macedonia, these three states began competing for the allegiance of the Macedonian population by supporting rival schools, national churches, and armed bands. The people of Macedonia increasingly identified themselves as Greeks or Bulgarians, or as members of a separate (Slavic) Macedonian nation. An armed terrorist group, founded in 1893 and best known as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), provoked local uprisings. The IMRO hoped that Ottoman reprisals would provoke the great powers of Europe to intervene and liberate Macedonia. The IMRO was itself split into factions, some seeking autonomy as a step toward union with Bulgaria and others seeking an independent Macedonia.

In 1912 Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia agreed to partition Macedonia and, together with Montenegro, attacked and defeated the Ottoman Empire in the First Balkan War. Then the victors quarreled over their shares of Macedonia, prompting the Second Balkan War (1913). In that conflict, Serbia and Greece, joined by Romania and the Ottoman Empire, quickly defeated Bulgaria. Greece acquired southern or Aegean Macedonia, and Serbia took northern or Vardar Macedonia. Bulgaria was left with a small piece of eastern Macedonia, known as Pirin Macedonia, and an enduring grudge nurtured by the conviction that all Macedonian Slavs were actually or potentially Bulgarians. Serbs called their share of Macedonia South Serbia and tried to force the population to accept a Serbian identity. In 1915, during World War I (1914-1918), Bulgarians returned as initially welcome, but later resented, occupiers. At the end of the war, with Bulgaria among the defeated Central Powers, Vardar Macedonia, slightly enlarged at Bulgaria’s expense, was again South Serbia and part of the new Serb-dominated Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later renamed Yugoslavia. Serbs were sent as colonists. Efforts to give the native population a Serbian identity resumed as did the IMRO’s terrorist activities, which included the assassination of King Aleksandar I of Yugoslavia in 1934.

MACEDONIA IA NOT GREEK 86.124.28.168 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Em..yes it is? Go look that up, I have already written about this several times.

A person or place may have one or more nicknames. In formal documentation though, the Official Name should be indicated. Country Names should not reflect POV of editors or administrators. It seems reasonable to use in wikipedia articles the Official registered name in EU, UN, or NATO. Unless this is a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation.

I've posted it here because even Wikipedia administrators get confused in this article and write for the boundaries to the north of Greece as Republic of Macedonia instead of the "Official country Name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Shown enlarged above Odysses (☜) 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of official is by itself POV, the name given by the government is as official as that by UN etc. Andreas 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

FYROM is the name used by this country to register into UN and to apply for membership into EU and NATO, as shown in the Official websites above. Hence, this country appears in the respective country-member lists under "FYROM". It is customary for countries to apply for membership to these organizations using their official name by which other country-members address to them. Should the official name change as for example in the case of Zaire (Zaire, its name was changed on 17 May 1997 to the Democratic Republic of the Congo) they should apply to rename and the name on the lists should change accordingly. This, I trust, is the General Practice, it's not a POV. Odysses (☜) 16:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Every country of the world, apart from GREECE, refers to the country as Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. As Greece has blocked the recognition of that name in the UN, effectively there is no international name for the Republic of Macedonia. This is NOT the same as being the official name: essentially, Greece has managed to bring its own fucked-up mentality to the rest of the Balkans [as if they don't have enough problems anyway]. So cut the crap with "official names". And while we're at it, why can't Greeks accept official data from the Greek state? This page, and all the other Greek pages, are full of crap invented by Greeks, instead of respectable scholarship and official state data... You people make me puke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.109.36 ( talk • contribs)

Dear anon, your arguments above are perfectly reasonable and constructive until the last three sentences, which besides contributing nothing to the discussion, tend to undermine your own credibility. If your goal is to improve this encyclopedia by ensuring that the (Slav) Macedonian positions are well-represented, you would do well to avoid such intemperate language. -- Macrakis 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My dear troll, I'd like to thank you for the entertainment you offer to us. I'm an optimist. I do believe that some time in the far future, you will be able to engage in a civilised conversation. -- Avg 23:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to the substantive issue here, clearly Greece has blocked the use of the name "Republic of Macedonia" in those international forums where it has some diplomatic influence. Equally clearly, the state itself uses "Republic of Macedonia" as its official name. Some other countries (e.g. the U.S.) also use "Republic of Macedonia". The situation is similar to the "Republic of China", which in most international organizations (if it is accepted at all) is called "Chinese Taipei" because of the objections of the P.R.C., but in Wikipedia keeps its preferred name for itself, the "Republic of China". -- Macrakis 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis, there is no "clearly" in this case, so don't use this kind of words to influence others. If there is something "clear", this is that the name FYROM is a temporary name accepted by BOTH parts, until the naming dispute is resolved. The name Republic of Macedonia is the name the state uses for itself INTERNALLY. FYROM is not Greek POV, it's NPOV. Greeks call this state "Skopje" as you very well know. Have you seen anyone here referring to FYROM as Skopje? Although that's how we refer to it in everyday talk. I would say it's bad form to try finding similarities with other non-relevant cases just because the outcome suits you. -- Avg 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Greeks do not use 'Skopje', they use 'ta Skopia' (although they use same name as for the city, like Luxembourg). Greeks also say 'Gallia" for France etc. Germany is de:Deutschland, fr:Allemagne, hr:Njemačka, fi:Saksa, and see the Names of the Greeks. See also pars pro toto Andreas 19:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course you are right, I have just translated "Skopia" to English, for example FYROMians don't use "Macedonia" in everyday speech, they use "Makedonija". But I think we're deviating a bit. The point is that Macrakis repeatedly tries to persuade the readers that it's the Greeks who insist on the name FYROM, while the Greeks have never accepted or used internally any name containing the word "Macedonia" inside. I'm trying to show that FYROM is a compromise, not a name imposed by Greece. -- Avg 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have merely posted the sites of EU, UN and NATO on which FYROM is indicated. The unsigned (87.202.109.36 was posted from Athens [7]) insolent response to the above sites is probably suggesting to discard these sites as utterly unreliable and take it's saying for granted. Terribly sorry, not interested in propaganda. Odysses (☜) 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This very discussion (the naming of FYROM) has been repeated over and over again in Talk: Republic of Macedonia. Is it really necessary to have the same thing here? It certainly does not help improve the Greece article, and I'm inclined to think that it would be more suitable for a mailing list rather than Wikipedia... To all concerned please think over if having this conversation here is any good at all... -- Michalis Famelis 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Having on the article about Greece in a very prominent position the FYROMian POV is very offensive. Certainly you can't expect something like that to stay as it is. This will be an eternal revert war until logic prevails. -- Avg 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little point in discussing this here - you should go to Talk:Republic of Macedonia ( new) and explain why you think Wikipedia should refer to State X as FYROM and not "Republic of Macedonia". Despite the fact that Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent, it has been ensured that the Republic of Macedonia is referred as such everywhere. You're wasting your time here... -- Latinus 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

MACEDONIA IS THE ORIGINAL NAME

Macedonia is the original name of this land which is the only free part of Macedonia today the other parts of Macedonia are under so called Greeces, Bulgarian, Albanian and Serbian rule, where the people do not have rights as Macedonians. People who are confused with the name should look at maps before world war I when Macedonia was not devided. If MACEDONIA should be called FYROM than the so called Greece should be called FTROG (Former Turkies Republic of Greece), just as the northern part of Macedonia was a part of Yugoslavia so called Greece without the northern part of Macedonia was a part of Turkey. The only reason so called Greeks have a problem with the Macedonian name is because they are afraid the people would want to unite Macedonia in it's original borders, before world war I the southern part of Macedonia was never in history apart of Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.29.191 ( talk • contribs)

Clear BS, go look what I wrote further up. And before WW1 Greece still had Greek Macedonia. You are just trying to spread propaganda.

• The reason why FYROM is called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is to show distinction from the Greek province of Makedonia, not to advertise which State it was once a part of. Furthermore, both parts of your last sentence are absolutely false and uninformed; the FYROMians have no power nor legitimacy in expanding their borders and the Greeks of Macedonia are thoroughy proud to be part of Greece. Your second point...the Capital city of Macedonia under Phillip and Alexander the Great was Pella, well within Greek borders, furthermore, they conquered North even beyond the Danube, putting much of the Balkans within the Greek sphere of influence going as far back as 380 BC. The Byzantine Empire, as we all know, inhabited much of the Balkans as well for more than 1000 years. Please, opinions are not the same as fact, do not discuss a subject of which you have no knowledge. -- Xenophonos 05:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. 69.158.29.191...please sign your comments so that we know who we are talking to. This is not a political message board. It is an encyclopedia website. This is a discussion on the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia / Republic of Macedonia, whatever you want to call it; and not a fight about the history of the region. But since you brought it up that "Macedonia was never a part of Greece," allow me to point out that you harbor a very skewed understanding of history. Your position on FYROM's/Rep. of Macedonia's name is perfectly valid, but your references to history expose a deficiency on your part. The concept of nation-states did not exist until the late 18th/early 19th centuries, and -yes- until the early 20th century, Macedonia was not a part of the modern Greek State (newly independent from the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century). However the region of Macedonia has played a very prominent role in the history of Greek-speaking culture and civilization for millenia. Just because it was not part of the modern-day recognized Greek State until 1913, does not mean it was never a part of Greek history, or that there was never a Greek-speaking presence in the region. To dispute this, you would not only be rejecting millenia of recorded history and countless historical artifacts, but you would also be making a bad impression of yourself. Skyduster 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that all these unsigned and offensive, at the same time, articles against Greece and Greeks are very amusing. Nevertheless, facts matter and which are these facts?

• Of course, most people around the world use the term "Macedonia" for this country, but "FYROM" remains the only official name for UN and many states around the world. Hence, why don't we have the right to use the name "FYROM" for this country? Who has the right to impede us, since this name remains the only internationally official?
• I would gladly discuss the history of Macedonia and of its residents. But, please, speak with evidence, facts and data. Some anoms speak about maps before World War 1. What maps? Maps of the Othoman Empire?! And what original borders before World War I? The borders of the Othoman Empire? Because no other borders existed in the region during this period.

-- Yannismarou 21:45, the 25th of March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! -- Hectorian 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The ancient macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek, attended the Olympic games, read and wrote Greek literature, worshipped the Greek gods, used Greek currency, used Greek military tactics and weapons, and were members of the Delian league and other Pan- Hellenic leagues. The ancient Macedonians claimed dorian blood (like the Spartans), and rulers such as Phillip II and Alexander the Great were part of the Argead dynasty which was from Argos. Alexander the Great was educated by the Greek tutor Aristotle, and was labelled a 'Philhellene' (Lover of Greece). There are many documented quotes where Argead kings admit their Hellenic descent including the following by Alexander I: "For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." Alexander the Great would sleep with the Iliad (an epic Greek poem written by Homer) under his pillow as he felt deep admiration to the heroes of the story. He traced his ancestory back to Achilles and to Hercules, who both feature in the Iliad.

The occupants of FYRO"M" are Slavs who migrated into the Balkans in the 6th century. Linguists world wide have proven that they speak a dialect of Bulgarian. They are falsely trying to appropriate history in order to validate their presence in the hotly debated Balkans.

I cut the following here for discussion:

In June 2002, Greek police achieved a major breakthrough in dealing with domestic terrorism when it managed to arrest the members of the Revolutionary Organization 17 November terrorist group. The group had formed in 1974 and was responsible for the killing of several American, British and Turkish officials residing in Greece as well as for the killing of prominent Greek politicians (such as Pavlos Bakoyiannis, late husband of the newly appointed Foreign Minister, Dora Bakoyannis). The trial of those arrested was started in March 2003, and ended in December 2003, with the conviction of 15 defendants. Three defendants were acquitted, all of them on the basis of reasonable doubt [8], while a fourth defendant, Theologos Psaradellis, was acquitted because the statute of limitations for his participation in a terrorist organization had expired. [9]

I don't think that this belongs here at all. See above discussion about length. This belongs in either the November 17 group article, or as a summary in Law enforcement in Greece, but not here as a paragraph's worth of Greece's 2000+ year history. Jkelly 17:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm down with that.  :) Project2501a 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--Can't see anything wrong with a removal on these grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfyrios ( talk • contribs) The history of the territory and people of the FYROM was part of the history of the larger region of Macedonia until the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), when the region was divided among Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Macedonia had been a province of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 500 years, but by the early 20th century the declining empire was losing its grip on the region. In the 19th century the empire lost one after another of its Balkan possessions, and by the end of that century only Macedonia, Albania, and Thrace remained under Ottoman control. After the Congress of Berlin (1878) had created a virtually independent Bulgaria, which became completely independent in 1908, and enlarged Greece and Serbia to the borders of Ottoman Macedonia, these three states began competing for the allegiance of the Macedonian population by supporting rival schools, national churches, and armed bands. The people of Macedonia increasingly identified themselves as Greeks or Bulgarians, or as members of a separate (Slavic) Macedonian nation. An armed terrorist group, founded in 1893 and best known as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), provoked local uprisings. The IMRO hoped that Ottoman reprisals would provoke the great powers of Europe to intervene and liberate Macedonia. The IMRO was itself split into factions, some seeking autonomy as a step toward union with Bulgaria and others seeking an independent Macedonia.

In 1912 Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia agreed to partition Macedonia and, together with Montenegro, attacked and defeated the Ottoman Empire in the First Balkan War. Then the victors quarreled over their shares of Macedonia, prompting the Second Balkan War (1913). In that conflict, Serbia and Greece, joined by Romania and the Ottoman Empire, quickly defeated Bulgaria. Greece acquired southern or Aegean Macedonia, and Serbia took northern or Vardar Macedonia. Bulgaria was left with a small piece of eastern Macedonia, known as Pirin Macedonia, and an enduring grudge nurtured by the conviction that all Macedonian Slavs were actually or potentially Bulgarians. Serbs called their share of Macedonia South Serbia and tried to force the population to accept a Serbian identity. In 1915, during World War I (1914-1918), Bulgarians returned as initially welcome, but later resented, occupiers. At the end of the war, with Bulgaria among the defeated Central Powers, Vardar Macedonia, slightly enlarged at Bulgaria’s expense, was again South Serbia and part of the new Serb-dominated Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later renamed Yugoslavia. Serbs were sent as colonists. Efforts to give the native population a Serbian identity resumed as did the IMRO’s terrorist activities, which included the assassination of King Aleksandar I of Yugoslavia in 1934. 86.124.28.168 00:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

HISTORY Throughout its history, the present-day territory of Macedonia has been a crossroads for both traders and conquerors moving between the European continent and Asia Minor. Each of these transiting powers left its mark upon the region, giving rise to a rich and varied cultural and historical tradition.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the territory of Macedonia fell under the control of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was during this period that large groups of Slavic people migrated to the Balkan region. The Ottoman Turks conquered the territory in the 15th century; it remained under Ottoman Turkish rule until 1912.

After more than four centuries of rule, Ottoman power in the region began to wane, and by the middle of the 19th century, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia were competing for influence in the territory. During this time, a nationalist movement emerged and grew in Macedonia. The latter half of the 19th century, and continuing into the early part of the 20th century, was marked by sporadic nationalist uprisings, culminating in the Ilinden Uprising of August 2, 1903. Macedonian revolutionaries liberated the town of Krushevo and established the short-lived Republic of Krushevo, which was put down by Ottoman forces after 10 days. Following Ottoman Turkey's defeat by the allied Balkan countries--Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece--during the First Balkan War in autumn 1912, the same allies fought the Second Balkan War over the division of Macedonia. The August 1913 Treaty of Bucharest ended this conflict by dividing the territory between Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles sanctioned partitioning Macedonia between The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Bulgaria, and Greece. In the wake of the First World War, Vardar Macedonia (the present day area of the Republic of Macedonia) was incorporated into the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

Throughout much of the Second World War, Bulgaria and Italy occupied Macedonia. Many people joined partisan movements during this time and succeeded in liberating the region in late 1944. Following the war, Macedonia became one of the constituent republics of the new Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. During this period, Macedonian culture and language flourished.

As communism fell throughout Eastern Europe in the late 20th century, Macedonia followed its other federation partners and declared its independence from Yugoslavia in late 1991. Macedonia was the only republic of the former Yugoslavia whose secession in 1991 was not clouded by ethnic or other armed conflict, although the ethnic Albanian population declined to participate in the referendum on independence. The new Macedonian constitution took effect November 20, 1991 and called for a system of government based on a parliamentary democracy. The first democratically elected coalition government was led by Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) and included the ethnic Albanian Party for Democratic Prosperity (PDP). Kiro Gligorov became the first President of an independent Macedonia.

President Gligorov was the first president of a former Yugoslav republic to relinquish office. In accordance with the terms of the Macedonian constitution, his presidency ended in November 1999 after 8 years in office, which included surviving a car bombing assassination attempt in 1995. He was succeeded by former Deputy Foreign Minister Boris Trajkovski (VMRO-DPMNE) , who defeated Tito Petkovski (SDSM) in a second-round run-off election for the presidency on November 14, 1999. Trajkovski's election was confirmed by a December 5, 1999 partial re-vote in 230 polling stations, which the Macedonian Supreme Court mandated due to election irregularities.

In November 1998 parliamentary elections, the SDSM lost its majority. A new coalition government emerged under the leadership of Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE). The initial coalition included the ethnic Albanian Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA).

During the Yugoslav period, Macedonian ethnic identity was evident in that most of Macedonia's Slavic population identified themselves as Macedonians, while several minority groups, in particular ethnic Albanians, retained their own distinct political culture and language. Although interethnic tensions simmered under Yugoslav authority and during the first decade of its independence, the country avoided ethnically motivated conflict until several years after independence. Ethnic minority grievances, which had erupted on occasion (1995 and 1997), rapidly began to gain political currency in late 2000, leading many in the ethnic Albanian community in Macedonia to question their minority protection under, and participation in, the government. Tensions erupted into open hostilities in Macedonia in February 2001, when a group of ethnic Albanians near the Kosovo border carried out armed provocations that soon escalated into an insurgency. Purporting to fight for greater civil rights for ethnic Albanians in Macedonia, the group seized territory and launched attacks against government forces. Many observers ascribed other motives to the so-called National Liberation Army (NLA), including support for criminality and the assertion of political control over affected areas. The insurgency spread through northern and western Macedonia during the first half of 2001. Under international mediation, a cease-fire was brokered in July 2001, and the government coalition was expanded in July 2001 to form a grand coalition which included the major opposition parties.

The expanded coalition of ruling ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian political leaders, with facilitation by U.S. and European Union (EU) diplomats, negotiated and then signed the Ohrid Framework Agreement in August 2001, which brought an end to the fighting. The agreement called for implementation of constitutional and legislative changes, which lay the foundation for improved civil rights for minority groups. The Macedonian parliament adopted the constitutional changes outlined in the accord in November 2001. The grand coalition disbanded following the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the passage of new constitutional amendments. A coalition led by Prime Minister Georgievski, including DPA and several smaller parties, completed their parliamentary term.

In September 2002 elections, an SDSM-led pre-election coalition won half of the 120 seats in parliament. Branko Crvenkovski was elected Prime Minister in coalition with the ethnic Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) party and the Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP).

On February 26, 2004 President Trajkovski died in a plane crash in Bosnia. Presidential elections were held April 14 and 28, 2004. Then-Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski won the second round and was inaugurated President on May 12, 2004. The parliament confirmed Hari Kostov, former Interior Minister, as Prime Minister June 2, 2004. Prime Minister Kostov resigned November 15, 2004. On December 17, 2004, former Defense Minister Vlado Buckovski was confirmed by parliament as Prime Minister, maintaining the coalition with the ethnic Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) and the Liberal-Democratic (LDP) parties.

With international assistance, the SDSM-DUI-LDP governing coalition completed the legislative implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which is a precondition for Macedonia’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. A November 7, 2004 referendum opposing completion of this process failed, freeing the way for the government to complete Framework Agreement implementation.

Local elections were held in March-April 2005 under a new territorial reorganization plan that consolidated the overall number of Macedonia’s municipalities and created a number of ethnically-mixed municipalities in which ethnic Albanian populations were dominant. The process of decentralization began in the new municipalities in July 2005 and is continuing.

The July 2006 parliamentary elections resulted in a VMRO-DPMNE-led government assuming power, in coalition with DPA, NSDP, and several smaller parties. The new government, which was confirmed in office by a parliamentary vote on August 26, 2006, stated its commitment to completing Framework Agreement implementation and reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing NATO and EU membership. 86.124.28.168 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from section 'culture':

"Greece has a particularly poor culture and it has produced a vast number of contributions to philosophy, astronomy, science, and the arts."

Perhaps something has been lost in translation here, it doesn't make much sense. 81.79.215.123 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it is obviously sneaky vandalism. Be bold and remove it. -- Michalis Famelis 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Cyprus? Perhaps you mean the world's only exclusively Greek state, but I really see no merit in mentioning that. Why was it in the intro anyway? --    Avg    21:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) ( Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Greek)) - a policy in development for consistent transcription of Greek names and terms (both ancient and modern Greek). You're invited to comment on the proposals. 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

HISTORY Throughout its history, the present-day territory of Macedonia has been a crossroads for both traders and conquerors moving between the European continent and Asia Minor. Each of these transiting powers left its mark upon the region, giving rise to a rich and varied cultural and historical tradition.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the territory of Macedonia fell under the control of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was during this period that large groups of Slavic people migrated to the Balkan region. The Ottoman Turks conquered the territory in the 15th century; it remained under Ottoman Turkish rule until 1912.

After more than four centuries of rule, Ottoman power in the region began to wane, and by the middle of the 19th century, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia were competing for influence in the territory. During this time, a nationalist movement emerged and grew in Macedonia. The latter half of the 19th century, and continuing into the early part of the 20th century, was marked by sporadic nationalist uprisings, culminating in the Ilinden Uprising of August 2, 1903. Macedonian revolutionaries liberated the town of Krushevo and established the short-lived Republic of Krushevo, which was put down by Ottoman forces after 10 days. Following Ottoman Turkey's defeat by the allied Balkan countries--Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece--during the First Balkan War in autumn 1912, the same allies fought the Second Balkan War over the division of Macedonia. The August 1913 Treaty of Bucharest ended this conflict by dividing the territory between Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles sanctioned partitioning Macedonia between The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Bulgaria, and Greece. In the wake of the First World War, Vardar Macedonia (the present day area of the Republic of Macedonia) was incorporated into the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

Throughout much of the Second World War, Bulgaria and Italy occupied Macedonia. Many people joined partisan movements during this time and succeeded in liberating the region in late 1944. Following the war, Macedonia became one of the constituent republics of the new Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. During this period, Macedonian culture and language flourished.

As communism fell throughout Eastern Europe in the late 20th century, Macedonia followed its other federation partners and declared its independence from Yugoslavia in late 1991. Macedonia was the only republic of the former Yugoslavia whose secession in 1991 was not clouded by ethnic or other armed conflict, although the ethnic Albanian population declined to participate in the referendum on independence. The new Macedonian constitution took effect November 20, 1991 and called for a system of government based on a parliamentary democracy. The first democratically elected coalition government was led by Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) and included the ethnic Albanian Party for Democratic Prosperity (PDP). Kiro Gligorov became the first President of an independent Macedonia.

President Gligorov was the first president of a former Yugoslav republic to relinquish office. In accordance with the terms of the Macedonian constitution, his presidency ended in November 1999 after 8 years in office, which included surviving a car bombing assassination attempt in 1995. He was succeeded by former Deputy Foreign Minister Boris Trajkovski (VMRO-DPMNE) , who defeated Tito Petkovski (SDSM) in a second-round run-off election for the presidency on November 14, 1999. Trajkovski's election was confirmed by a December 5, 1999 partial re-vote in 230 polling stations, which the Macedonian Supreme Court mandated due to election irregularities.

In November 1998 parliamentary elections, the SDSM lost its majority. A new coalition government emerged under the leadership of Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE). The initial coalition included the ethnic Albanian Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA).

During the Yugoslav period, Macedonian ethnic identity was evident in that most of Macedonia's Slavic population identified themselves as Macedonians, while several minority groups, in particular ethnic Albanians, retained their own distinct political culture and language. Although interethnic tensions simmered under Yugoslav authority and during the first decade of its independence, the country avoided ethnically motivated conflict until several years after independence. Ethnic minority grievances, which had erupted on occasion (1995 and 1997), rapidly began to gain political currency in late 2000, leading many in the ethnic Albanian community in Macedonia to question their minority protection under, and participation in, the government. Tensions erupted into open hostilities in Macedonia in February 2001, when a group of ethnic Albanians near the Kosovo border carried out armed provocations that soon escalated into an insurgency. Purporting to fight for greater civil rights for ethnic Albanians in Macedonia, the group seized territory and launched attacks against government forces. Many observers ascribed other motives to the so-called National Liberation Army (NLA), including support for criminality and the assertion of political control over affected areas. The insurgency spread through northern and western Macedonia during the first half of 2001. Under international mediation, a cease-fire was brokered in July 2001, and the government coalition was expanded in July 2001 to form a grand coalition which included the major opposition parties.

The expanded coalition of ruling ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian political leaders, with facilitation by U.S. and European Union (EU) diplomats, negotiated and then signed the Ohrid Framework Agreement in August 2001, which brought an end to the fighting. The agreement called for implementation of constitutional and legislative changes, which lay the foundation for improved civil rights for minority groups. The Macedonian parliament adopted the constitutional changes outlined in the accord in November 2001. The grand coalition disbanded following the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the passage of new constitutional amendments. A coalition led by Prime Minister Georgievski, including DPA and several smaller parties, completed their parliamentary term.

In September 2002 elections, an SDSM-led pre-election coalition won half of the 120 seats in parliament. Branko Crvenkovski was elected Prime Minister in coalition with the ethnic Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) party and the Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP).

On February 26, 2004 President Trajkovski died in a plane crash in Bosnia. Presidential elections were held April 14 and 28, 2004. Then-Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski won the second round and was inaugurated President on May 12, 2004. The parliament confirmed Hari Kostov, former Interior Minister, as Prime Minister June 2, 2004. Prime Minister Kostov resigned November 15, 2004. On December 17, 2004, former Defense Minister Vlado Buckovski was confirmed by parliament as Prime Minister, maintaining the coalition with the ethnic Albanian Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) and the Liberal-Democratic (LDP) parties.

With international assistance, the SDSM-DUI-LDP governing coalition completed the legislative implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which is a precondition for Macedonia’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. A November 7, 2004 referendum opposing completion of this process failed, freeing the way for the government to complete Framework Agreement implementation.

Local elections were held in March-April 2005 under a new territorial reorganization plan that consolidated the overall number of Macedonia’s municipalities and created a number of ethnically-mixed municipalities in which ethnic Albanian populations were dominant. The process of decentralization began in the new municipalities in July 2005 and is continuing.

The July 2006 parliamentary elections resulted in a VMRO-DPMNE-led government assuming power, in coalition with DPA, NSDP, and several smaller parties. The new government, which was confirmed in office by a parliamentary vote on August 26, 2006, stated its commitment to completing Framework Agreement implementation and reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing NATO and EU membership. 86.124.28.168 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly and Telex on this one, and I'd ask you not to revert the mentioning of Turks again. Of course there are ethnic Turks among the Muslim minority. What the government says about them is utterly irrelevant. Governments don't get to decide what ethnicities live in their countries. Otherwise we couldn't speak of Kurds in Turkey, Greeks in Albania etc etc either. Sure, the Turks in Greece do not form a minority group in legal terms, i.e. they do not have a special group status or special collective rights qua Turks (they have that only as parts of the larger Muslim group). But that has nothing to do with whether they exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Macrakis 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The norm in Greece is to refer to "Greeks" in Turkey, while we speak about "Muslims" in Thrace, which is obvious double standards. Not all of them are Turks, since Pomaks are NOT Turks, but some of them, I don't know how many, are. The official position of the Greek state, that this is only a religious minority has to be mentioned as well though, for completeness. Having said all that, there is a very basic difference between Greeks in Turkey and Turks in Greece. After the pogroms of 1955 and the general ethnic cleansing policies of the Kemalist state, there are perhaps 1000 Greeks or less left in Turkey, most of them in Istanbul. The Greeks did NOT ethnic cleanse the Turks. Turks are perhaps a hundred times more and they occupy a large portion of two prefectures (Rhodopi and Xanthi). Greece, contrary to acquis communautaire and because of strict adherence to the Lausanne treaty, still lets the mufti perform lots of administrative and judicial duties. This, along with continuous propaganda from the Turkish state (the books in minority schools come directly from Turkey!), has made the minority a time-bomb inside Greece, waiting to explode. --    Avg    00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To Mywayyy: the Greek government does acknowledge ethnic Turks in Thrace [10]. -- Telex 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkey page: "A clear sign of improved relations occured** on May 23, 2006; a Greek and Turkish fighter jet were involved in a mid air collision in the southern Aegean. While the Turkish pilot ejected safely, the Greek pilot lost his life. However, both countries agreed that the event should not affect their relations.[1]"

Greece page: "In May 2006, Greco-Turkish relations entered a new phase of tension, after the mid-air collision of a Greek F-16 with a Turkish F-16 and the death of the Greek pilot. Constant airspace violations and provocations by Turkey as well as the many internal political problems the country faces, have led Greece to believe that relations with Turkey have entered a cold war period and that a crisis similar to the 1996 Imia crisis is possible. The April 2006 European Commission's report for Turkey stated that Turkey has changed direction from a democratic EU-orriented** country to a military-controlled country with less interest in human rights."

This is inconsistent. Moreover, I can't find the April 2006 European Commission's report for Turkey. Rcata

• • misspellings

It seems that the inconsistency has been eliminated now. Rcata

I'm glad to see the history section being turned into more of a summary. I'd like to suggest that the material not be simply discarded, however. Some of it may belong in the History of Greece articles, not all of which are very well-developed. Jkelly 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Politis 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Greece, despire its georaphical position, is considered a Western European Nation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.34 ( talk • contribs) .

By whom is it considered a western European nation? What is a western European nation? -- Tēlex 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is considered Western European largely for 2 reasons, firstly, because it was part of the 'first 15' of the EU, and secondly, because it is largely far richer and more powerful than it's Balkan and Eastern European neighbours in per capita terms.

No doubt, Greece is a Western nation...the question is whether we should emphazise this in the article. ( Giorgos 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Why not just state those two reasons explicitly without having to mention "Western European"? You'd only get into pointless debates this way. -- Polaron | Talk 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL how is it a western European nation??? Greece is geographically,culturally Mediterranean/South European and Balkan despite it being richer. jeez why is everything so political these days.

Well, it all depends what you mean by "western european". Geographically, Greece is in SE Europe. Politically it is part of the Western world (do read the article, it's quite a read). Culturally, well, as Pavlos Sidiropoulos once put it we are part East, part West. Now as for which part is heavier, that depends on what one percieves as dominant cultural elements. But, all in all, this discussion is not that productive, regarding the article anyway. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "cultural" Western Europe, anyway? What do Spain and Sweden have in common? Greece shares Eastern Orthodox Christianity with Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, etc, but also shares Greco-Roman roots with the likes of Italy, France, and Spain (what the French call "la civilization greco-latine"). Most Greeks identify more with the Mediterranean cultures of Italy and Spain than with their Balkan neighbors. Cultural groupings within Europe are not mutually exclusive. Skyduster 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Greece has contributed essentially to the foundations of Western thought, the West recognizes Greece as culturally being Western European. It's not looking at Western Europe from a Greek perspective per se, but a Western European standpoint looking at Greece. -- Xenophonos 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded this article massively since about a month ago, any help is greatly appreciated!

When I was reading this article it seems that people like to reference the Byzantine empire as a Greek empire. How is this so? Because they spoke greek it does not mean they are a greek empire, I would think that the greeks were just part of the empire. The Byzantine Empire was originally part of the Roman Empire until it was split and the centre was at Constantinople. From Constantinople they ruled over much of the eastern Mediterranean all the way to morocco. Since the centre was at Constantinople I can’t see how Greeks can even say it is a Greek empire, they were part of the empire, peripheral land. If any country should claim it as ‘their’ Empire I would think it to be the Turks as the centre was at Constantinople or even Rome as it originally was seen as a Roman Empire, ironically it survived the Western Roman Empire. I would think that this topic would be a source of discussion. Further more when the Latin Empire was set up, Greece was conquered by successive European rulers, Constantinople was liberated from the lands of nicea not Greece, someone please tell me what importance Greece had on the Byzantine Empire that it should deserve to claim it as theirs?

I believe that identifying the later Byzantine Empire as a predominantly Greek state is based on the following facts: (a) Greek was the language of legislation, administration and religion, (b) the top dignitaries, including most Emperors and Patriarchs claimed to be Greek and (c) the religious and philosophical texts of the time provide documentary evidence a Greek conscience. Most Byzantine scholars drew conceptual linkages between themselves and the ancient Greeks (often aligning themselves to either Plato or Aristotle), and from the 11th century onward explicitly juxtaposed themselves from the West, whom they refered to as "Latini". In summary, there is compelling evidence that the Byzantines themselves viewed themselves as Greek. TheArchon 13:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i see, i have also noticed that alot of the Byzantine emperors had very greek names but i dont think the byzantine empire was not made up of Greeks. They recruited most of their army from anatolia hence the reason why the battle of manzikerk in 1071 was so devastating is because after the battle nearly all of anatolia was annexed. With the 'thinking' like greeks i would think that most empires would of studied Ancient greek Litriture such as plato as we still do today. Although the Emperors had greek names where did they originate from? the only real reason that i would think that greeks would claim Byzantine Empire as theirs is because of the official language they used, other than that i cant really see why Greece is claiming it as theirs. i know you said that the Byzantines liked to view them selves as greeks but wouldnt you think they claimed that because Greece was the most famouse country in the area that if drawing connection to greece that is giving prestige to a eastern empire, it also legitimizes their connection to Europe or even to a once great empire (propaganda purposes)

Please make sure you sign your comments. Also, the Byzantine Empire was often called 'Greek Empire' until the 19th century. Try a search on Gibbon's 'Decline and fall of the Roman empire'. Politis 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your reasoning, but I think you are missing the point. It is not modern Greeks who are laying claims to an old empire, it was the Byzantines who claimed to be Greek. It seems simplistic to suggest that they did this solely because they had studied Ancient Greek Literature. After all, most inhabitants of modern Istanbul wouldn't claim to be descendents of Greeks, even though Aristitle is studied at University there. By contrast, Byzantine scholars such as Georgios Gemistus (Plethon) left copious amounts of documents attesting to their Greek conscience - Pletho drew on the entire cultural context of his time to conclude that "We are therefore Hellenes, as evidenced by our language and our paternal education" Of course, it can be argued that the Byzantines were lying or simply mistaken. However, it is an axiom of scientific thought that we must accept the simplest adequate interpretation of available facts ( lex parsimoniae). In my view, the most parsimonious interpretation was that the Byzantines claimed to be Greeks because they actually felt Greek.

That said, the Byzantine state was not a Greek nation-state in the modern sense of the word. The concept of a state where the ruler and the ruled are bound together by bonds of national kinship is a much later development. Still, it is difficult to challenge the Greek character of the Byzantine Empire. TheArchon 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone feels Greek, speaks Greek, looks Greek, was born of parents who also felt spoke and looked Greek, in a country that called Greece, cant it be said that their interpretation of Greekness is universally valid and not subjective to interpretation as you claim? Colossus 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i see and i do understand with the comments above, its still a good source for debate though, but i largely con cur with your statements.

Do you think that ethnic Greeks or Greek-speakers, what-have-you, disappeared sometime during Greece's Roman Era (and that some aliens came from nowhere and immediately learned how to speak Greek)? Greek-speakers/ethnic Greeks -whatever- pretty much ran the Byzantine Empire. And the Byzantine Empire included the lands that are now the modern Greek nation-state (and then some), therefore it's a part of the history of the country of Greece, and the history of Greek-speaking culture and civilization. Yes, even if newcomers came to Greece and assimiliated into the Greek-speaking population. It's still Greek civilization. Just as America (USA) is still the same country after all those European immigrants arrived in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, and the country expanded its territory from the Atlantic coast all the way to the 20th; it's still the same country and civilization. The same culture is passed down through generations, even if it evolves over time; the same consciousness, language, cultural heitage, and -yes- ethnic lineage to whatever extent, is passed down. Why is this so hard to grasp? Sheesh. And please sign your comments. Skyduster 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Though off topic a bit, i was reading about the Catalan Company and didnt relize how devestating the Catalan Company was to Greece. Is it also true in greece the "Catalan Revenge" is really the worst curse you can bring on someone in Greece? i read that on a diffrent web page about the latin empire and the catalan Company.

The Byzantine Empire is NOT greek empire. One example: the byzantine historians Usually called the Bulgarians "Moesians" in order to offend them and make them think they are miserable. The Bulgarians called the Byzantines "greeks" in order to offend them and make them feel miserable.-- Gligan 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what "Greek" means. The Byzantine Empire was a very multicultural empire (just like Bulgaria was then). The "Greekness" of the Byzantines is in the fact that they officially spoke Greek, not Latin, Turkish, Arabic or Slavic.-- Tekleni 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's as simple as that. For example medieval Armenian scribes designated all Chalcedonian Orthodox (even Armenians) peoples as Greeks and all Catholics as Franks/Latins.-- Eupator 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So I hope then, that you do not consider Byzantium as Greece. As you said, it really used to be a multinational state, which transmitted the ancient heritage to medieval Europe (especially to the Slavic states, mainly through the Bulgarian Empire) but disappeared from history forever:) -- Gligan 19:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, you see the Byzantine Empire was about as "Greek", as the Bulgarian Empires were "Bulgarian". They both were multiethnic. I think Britannica sums it up quite accurately [11]:

Greece lies at the juncture of Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is heir to the heritages of classical Greece, the Byzantine Empire, and nearly four centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule. From ancient Greece the modern country inherited a sophisticated culture and a language that has been documented for almost three millennia. The language of Periclean Athens in the 5th century BC and the present-day language of the Greeks are recognizably one and the same; few languages can demonstrate such continuity. From the Byzantine Empire it has inherited Eastern Orthodox Christianity and from Ottoman rule attitudes and values that continue to be of significance, not least in shaping the country's political culture.

-- Tekleni 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What hasn't been mentioned here is how Greek the Eastern Meditteranean was for centuries. To answer this question, one has to dig even further back into history. To sum up, Alexander the Great conquered what was the Persian Empire and more. Greeks dispersed all throughout the empire (and during the Wars of the Diadochoi) and Greek/Hellenistic culture was dominant for many centuries. When the Romans conquered the area, Greek was still the dominant language, however official documents were in Latin. Greek continued to be spoken by most people in the Eastern Meditteranean, from the Danube to the Euphrates to the Nile. After Rome fell and the capital of the Empire went to Constantinople, the dominant language, having been Greek for many centuries became the official language. It coincides with the rise of Christianity, as many early documents were written in Greek and most missionaries spread the religion in Greek. This is why the Byzantine Empire is sometimes called a Greek Empire, because of the language, dominant religion, culture, etc... Various invasions and movements of peoples brought in other ethnic groups into the mix, making the term Greek Empire a little politically incorrect, however Greek was the more dominant culture in the Byzantine Empire. Note also, that the Byzantines called themselves Romans...despite the fact they spoke Greek. What a group calls itself is not always what they are called by others. (IE Greeks vs Hellenes) -- Xenophonos 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL ^ Another use of the word Greek would've made my head explode. Uh oh....! -- Xenophonos 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The official Greek site has "Hymn to Freedom". This is also twice as common than "Hymn to Liberty" in Google.   Andreas   ^(T) 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Shame. I prefer Hymn to Liberty - for some reason I prefer the Latin words in English to the Germanic ones. -- Tēlex 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Personally, I tend to use the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' interchangably, but if I had to make a distinction, I'd say that 'Liberty' is a better choice. It seems to me that 'Freedom' refers to specific rights (e.g. freedom of assembly or freedom of speech), but 'liberty' is something more abstract. I also seem to recall hearing, in a political science course many years ago, that 'liberty' refers to the ability to do as one pleases (positive liberty?) and the absence of abusive authority (negative liberty?). Of course, Andreas is right in pointing out that we should conform to the official version, but is it really the "best" choice? TheArchon 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The English language consists is a Germanic language with French, Latin and Greek terms. Freedom is from the German, Liberty from the Latin. In fact, English is divided between two dialects. The popular dialect consists overwhelmingly of German terms, and the educated dialect mostly of French, Latin and Greek terms. Politis 13:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, English is rather fascinating in that sense (though it is probably not diglossic to the degree that you suggest). I agree with you that for most practical purposes, Liberty and Freedom are synonyms. What I meant is that in certain contexts one term sounds more "natural" than the other. TheArchon 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[12]

I think the word documented in this case is very misleading.It gives the impresion that it's a proven fact that they are ethnic greeks.( which for most its definitely not the case) what if we use the word "claimed" or "viewed? or "regarded" by the greek goverment to be as such?-- 69.119.50.159 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)LIO

who? Be more specific. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think i got what 69.119.50.159 means. The term 'documented' is no misleading at all! they are ethnic Greeks. it is not a claim by the greek government. they have immigratted in Greece as homogeneis (belonging to the same nation) and they have all the papers needed to prove that they are Greeks- in order for someone to be documented as homogenis, he/she must have at least one Greek parent, with all the paper work and evidence needed. so, no point in using another word instead. -- Hectorian 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the CIA World fact book for Albania: Population : 3,130,000 . 95% homogenus which leaves only 5% minority(even considering every single ethnic greek migrated form Albania). Even if all this 5% are greeks ( best estimate is around 3%) they can not account for 200.000 people that the article states. Do the math,this is pure POV. Second, a issued paper by the greek goverment, does not prove the point in question that's why I suggested regarded. Something similar was discussed for the turks above. The goverment gives a legal status,does not change the facts.-- 69.119.50.159 06:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The term and the privilleges of been a "homogenis" in Greece applies also to the Greek Pontians from the former USSR, the Greek-Americans, Greek-Australians, Greek-Canadians, practically everyone that has greek origins. As for Albania, other sources give higher estimations for the greek minority: an american one [13]. Not to mention that according to the greek government and the church, the Orthodox population of Albania are ethnic greeks (which means somewhere between 20-25%)... not to mention that the aromanians in Albania are closely assosiated with those in greece and in some aspects considere themselves greek as well... U chose to analyse the numbers according to your own ideas... well, that's your POV... -- Hectorian 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, except for one factual inaccuracy. Greece does not consider all Orthodox Albanians to be ethnic Greeks. It is in fact rather difficult to attain the legal benefits accorded to ομογενείς without documents proving one's Greek ancestry. Far from claiming a large chunk of Albania's population, Greece has been rather reluctant to award ethnic Greek status to the deluge of Albanian citizens that have applied for it. As for the Vlachs, their traditional association (and in many cases outright identification) with the Greeks would help them qualify as ομογενείς. While Albanians are considered ethnically distinct in Greece, the Vlachs are not.-- ΚέκρωΨ 10:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is only natural that different sources with (potentialy) different points of view (or even agendas?) present the data in different ways, or even different data alltogether. What we should do is present all points of view, courced and cited. For example "the CIA factbook says X, the Greek statistical agency says Y, the Albanian statistical agency says Z". The readers can then assess for themselves which source they consider reliable. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the pictures of this article, Greece consists of a few paintings, and some villages. Surely we could have major holiday destination, a tanker for the shipping community, an olive oil production factory - and no, I do not have the skill to do this :-( Politis 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit more pictures, throughout the article now, don't you think? :-) -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many!!!

Well, now there are just too many of them, at least at the history section... -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

does Greece use the motto "Ελευθερία ή θάνατος"

It surely has been around since the Greek War of Independence (1821). I don't know if it's earlier but it could be. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This motto exists from the first atempt for a Greek Revolution from Rigas Velestinlis in the 18th century.He was arrested und sentenced to death in 1798 from the ex Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ioannis Drinis

For the sake of clarity i have modified and also updated the "Economy" section (where lacking, I will add references ASAP. Mostly ELKE, and Ministry of Finance). I have also added a section called "Science and Technology".

new: improved previous changes (downsized). Also changed "Demographics" section to make it more consice and relevant to the article.

Practically most of the old section was dedicated to minorities. To balance that and make the section more representative I have modified it and added information on the whole of the Greek population with official statistics and references.

Linguistic and cultural minorities (arvanites, vlachs etc) are best to be included in the “Culture” section, so there is no confusion there. So I have removed these from ‘Demography’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stef79 ( talk • contribs)

On the Parthenon image, the temple of Athena Nike is missing. Has it been restored since? Is anybody willing to take a new photograph and posting it? See also TA NEA   Andreas   ^(T) 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Tony164#Your reverts on Greece

Hi, why did you re-introduce your edit I had previously reverted on Greece, regarding the Greek Orthodox Church ( [14])? I thought my edit summary was pretty self-explanatory: Church of Greece is factually incorrect in this instance. "Greek Orthodox Church" may be formally tagged as a dab page, but I believe it is actually the most informative place to point to in this instance. I'm a bit astonished at your seemingly mechanistic revert, are you a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. May I also ask you to be more careful in general with replacing those links, unless you are very certain about their factual accuracy? For instance here: [15] - I doubt a Greek church in Hungary would belong to the actual Church of Greece; AFAIR orthodox churches across Europe are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, but as long as we are not sure, the more general page "Greek Orthodox Church" seems more appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(end of copied text)

Orthodox Christians in Greece belong mostly to the Church of Greece. However, the dioceses of Crete and the Dodecanese and the Monastic Republic of Holy Mount Athos are under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and are not considered as part of the Church of Greece (copied from Church of Greece). This means that the idea of a religious affiliation is quite ambiguous in this instance, because it depends on both faith and place of residence. A link to a dismbiguation page cannot be the solution. My choice would be the Eastern Orthodox Church: I suspect that any individual baptized by one of the autocephalous branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church is counted in the official statistics as an Orthodox Christian. Can anybody find a source for this? What are the questions and proposed answers in the Greek census?   Andreas   ^(T) 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, the solution is simple: just acknowledge that the page Greek Orthodox Church is more than just a dab page. I've actually removed the tag there. That page stands for something which, I believe, corresponds most closely to what is really most Greek people's actual religious loyalty: the ethnically/linguistically/historically Greek version of Eastern Orthodoxy. That includes both Church of Greece and the ancient Patriarchal Sees, but it includes only to a significantly lesser degree the non-Greek-speaking Orthodox churches of Russia, Bulgaria etc. While this doesn't correspond to a single organisational body within the Eastern Church, it's a coherent cultural concept, and Greek Orthodox Church is where it should be treated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ive cleaned up the history section a bit. Since there is a History of Greece article, was there a point in having such a thorough section here? I'm constantly updating the links, but some might however be missing.

Why isn't Albanian listed on the Info-Box as one of the Common Languages, considering the fact that over 1 million Albanians live and work in Greece. Tonycdp 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Before people leap into an edit war over this, wait till we clarify what that "common languages" field is actually supposed to stand for, at Template talk:Infobox Country. It was only recently inserted here in the first place, and I'm not at all certain we're using it right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The field has been removed from the template since.   Andreas   ^(T) 15:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallo it would be very strange if there would list every immigrant language in Greece.Then they should also list Rumanian ,Bulgarian ,Russian ,Chienise ,Congoliese ,Sudaniese ,Suahili etc.

Hi I am an Hellin that does not like being called a Greek. If any Hellines read this they will understand that Greece was called our country (Hellas) from the Turks in a way to make us look infirior (Γραικια και Γραικοι). None inside Hellas calls himself Greek in the Hellenic language. So I think that all Hellines should not accept the "Greek" nickname.. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.92.9 ( talk • contribs)

The name "Greece" is not Turkish. The Turks call the land "Yunanistan" (which is a greek name, too). Do read the article Names of the Greeks. It's a featured article, that means it's one of Wikipedia's best articles. The word "Greek" comes from the ancient boeotian tribe of the Graeans. They were some of the first to colonize Italy, so the Latins used their name as a synecdoche to name all Hellenes. Therefore the West came to know them as "Graeci" and hence "Greeks". The same happened when the Persians met the Ionian colonists of Asia Minor. They used their name to name all Greeks. Therefore the East came to know the Hellenes as "Yunani" or "Yavan" or even " Ta Yuan". Mind you, the same goes for the name "Hellenes". The Hellenes themselves used the a small tribe in Thessaly, but later their name came to denote the whole nation. Also, there is the story of the name "Roman", "Romios", "Rûm" and so on. It's a fascinating story, read on... -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we know where this folk etymology about the origin of the word "Greek" comes from? Jkelly 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Without been sure, it comes from the first Roman writers, since the Romans had never used another word to refer to the Greeks. What (at least for me) seems interesting, is that the word Greek, Graikos literary means 'the old one' (or maybe with conotations of 'the wise one' or 'the prior one'). as for the name 'Hellenes', according to what i know is linked with 'Helios' (sun) and 'Helena' (beautiful, shiny). user 87.203.92.9 was right above when saying that the term 'Γραικοί' was used by the Turks as a term to asign a sort of 'inferiority' to the Greeks, but, besides that which is recent, compared to the european tradition (i mean that the Turks called us this way the soonest after the Fall of Constantinople) this is how we have been named in the western tradition since... ever... As the respective article says, only the Norwegians, the Chinese and the Vietnamese call us by a name coming from 'Hellen'. Hectorian 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was actually curious about where the wrong idea (that the word "Greek" is a slur) comes from. The above comment says that it is a Turkish insult. I've heard someone claim that it was Latin for slave. I'm wondering where the misinformation about the word history originates. Jkelly 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, where are you getting your linguistic information? As far as I know, no modern scholars (Greek or other) connect Hellene etymologically to either Helen or Helios. And what is the Turkish word you think corresponds to Γραικοί? In modern Turkish, the two words for Greek are Rum (< Ρωμαίος) and Yunanli (< Ιωνία). Perhaps you are thinking of the Slavic "Grk"? The English word 'Greek' has no negative connotations; the English word 'Hellene' is pretentious and relatively uncommon. No one claims that "Greek" is the common name in Greece; but then, we also say "German" and not "Deutsch", "Japanese" and not "Nihongo" etc. -- Macrakis 20:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To Jkelly: The one who, as u say, claimed that it was Latin for slave, is obviously wrong, since the Romans have used the word 'Graecus/Graeci/and all the derivatives' in many "noble" cases, unrelated with possible inferiority... About the misinformation that u mention, maybe it originates in the years of the Greek War of Independence (or somewhere there), when the classical studies had come to an advanced status in Europe, and the link of the modern with the ancient Greeks made the Europeans see the Greeks in a more possite way. thus, the Turks made a distinction, in verbal speech, between the '"Rums" (greek orthodox subjects of the sultan) and the "Graeci" (enlightent Greeks of the 19th century and the Romantic era). a case that comes into my mind right now, are the words of Athanasios Diakos... (i just fixed it, someone had changed his words, perhaps cause of misunderstanding [16]) ...i am not sure if i am helping:/ Hectorian 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To Macrakis: i am not saying that the name 'Greek' is common in Greece (u bet i know! never used it in Greece/with Greeks for myself...). U think that the Turks, even in Ottoman Turkish, were totally unfamiliar with the term 'Graecos'? please...! Hectorian 20:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know "Greek" is rare in Greece; that's exactly what I said.

As for the term "Graecos" in Turkish, you seem to be quite certain that it was used in Ottoman Turkish. If so, could you please tell us what form it took (girik?), what evidence you have for that, and what evidence you have that it was? You mention the words of Diakos; are you claiming that he used the word "Graikos" in Turkish?? If not, what relevance does that have? -- Macrakis 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt any pejorative use of "Γραικός" by the Ottomans. Even the fact that Diakos used the word at the moment before his death shows that he didn't consider it derogatory (if he wanted to use a derogatory word he'd have used " giaour"...) Apart from this, Hectorian, you contradict yourself! First you write: "the term 'Γραικοί' was used by the Turks as a term to asign a sort of 'inferiority' to the Greeks" and then "and the "Graeci" (enlightent Greeks of the 19th century and the Romantic era)". What to do you mean to say after all? That they used it pejoratively or the opposite? Anyway, my two cents is that the falsely percieved negative tone of "γραικός" comes from the poorly educated nationalist schoolteachers that are occasionaly found in greek schools (I myself had one). Those tend to adopt unfounded positions like this one as a way of short sighted "cultural resistance" against "western corruption of helleno-christian ideals" (in a "it's what americans call us, so it's a slave name" kind of way). I don't claim this is an objective or scholarly explanation, it's only what I figured out what my own 6th grade teacher was all about. By the way, "hellene" has nothing to do with either "helen" or "helios", any El connotations excluded :-) -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What i wrote was an attempt to explain the usage of the term. i did not say that it is a fact, nor did i use any reference for that. that's why i wrote in the end i am not sure if i am helping:/. Michali, i am not contradicting myself: the turks may had used the term in the way that they wanted/ felt like (possibly... maybe not...)... don't used at all... i do not know! and the greeks may had used the same term as enlightent Greeks of the 19th century and the Romantic era (i am still not sure...). (. Diakos may had called himself 'Graecos', in the way that he was proud to be something that the turks show as 'inferior'... also, note that i had put the word 'inferiority' in quotes)... (i continue to be unsure if they used it...). as for your teacher, i am sorry... Thank God, i did not have such teachers in any of my grades... btw, 'Hellen' has to do with 'helios' and 'helen', as part of many theories... no theory is conclusive, neither the 'Σελλοί' one, nor the valley of Thessaly (which would make me really proud, since i come from the very exact region;)...). El connotations and other crap conspiration theories are always excluded;)

To Macrakis: the term 'Greek' was known to the Ottoman Turks (unless u believe that the Turks had nothing to do with Europe and that they never get to know that the Europeans called us 'Greeks'...!). so, u tell me what was its meaning for them! i do not know, but u 'pretend' to know... Hectorian 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting so wildly incoherent that it doesn't deserve a response. -- Macrakis 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

'Hellin' in Greek transliterates as, 'Χελλιν' - I have never heard of them, perhaps our Turkish friends can tell us who they were... As for Greece, it has spent a fortune advertising, 'Greece, Land of Gods and Myths' (not to mention, istories gia drakous...:-). Politis 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK For starters.Hellines took their name from the mythic person Hellin who was the first to live in Hellas.And not Helios or Helen or whatever... "'Hellin' in Greek transliterates as, 'Χελλιν' " Wrong. It translates as "Ελλην".Thats what we call ourselves in here "Ελληνες".In ancient Hellenic grammar we had a thing called "δασία" which was put infront of many words starting with the Hellenic "E" or "Y" or "O" or "Η"(Hellenc 'i') that was prononced as an "X"(Hellenic 'h').As the years went by the "δασία" left Hellenic grammar.We call Hellen "Eλένη",Homer "Ομηρος", Hercules "Hρακλής" and so on...

But the question still remains... What sould we call ourselves to other nations? Shouldn't this "Greekenland" thing stop? Havened we have had the name Macedonia almost lost?We want to lose our Hellinic name also?

This is not a noticeboard. Please use this talk page only for discussing concrete improvements to the article. Thank you. (And yes, Politis knows what a spiritus asper is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the motto "Liberty or Death" still used nowadays? The only references I could find online stated that it was the motto during the Hellenic Revolution. It seems to be still used by the Greeks, but is it used officially? Google only gives we Wikipedia mirrors and sites that say nothing of the situation today. Pruneau ^talk 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It has never been changed as far as I know.-- Jsone 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have far to many images in this article. Any ideas on which ones should be removed? -- Tzekai 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's like vandalized! -- Alexignatiou 14:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This page appears to have an addition saying "i love brad fransis for life" at the bottom, which I'm pretty sure Greece doesn't. Er, I have no idea how to get rid of it. I just thought I'd point it out.

08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the infobox, footnote 1 ('Monarchy rejected by referendum December 8th, 1974.') is never referred.

Does anyone know where to put the ¹ in the infobox?

eboy 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. -- eboy 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Politis cut out some largish passages of text from the history section [17], and this was reverted as vandalism. I don't think it was, I take it as a perfectly good-faith effort at reducing an overlong section to bring it more into the format of Wikipedia:Summary style. Please note that this section should be a summary of things that are treated in full detail only in the dedicated sub-articles, especially History of Greece.

I haven't checked if I would agree with every single detail of Politis' cuts, but I quite agree with the overall intent, so I've provisionally reinstated his edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No it was not vandalism. The issue of 'too much history' has been raised in the past and agreed that it needed cutting. The 'problem' is that new editors - welcome to you all - think there is info to be added in the history section because they are probably do not know there are other sections regarding Greek history and aspects of that history. Politis 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. New editors cannot understand ow Wikipedia works. There is too much history there. FOr history of Greece there is a seperate article.-- Yannismarou 11:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Greek (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Greece is a transcontinental country isn't it? After all islands are geographically classified as being part of the continent they are nearest to, and certain Greek islands (e.g. Rhodes) are a lot closer to the Asian mainland than to Europe. Because I'd probably be reverted as a vandal if I slapped {{ Asia}} on: by Greeks for insinuating that Greece is not European, and by Turks for promoting the Megali Idea. What does everyone think?-- Tekleni 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting idea. Do you have any notable sources that promote this idea? If not, this would be classified as original research and therefore would have no place in WP.   Andreas   ^(T) 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just quoting this article.-- Tekleni 15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole "transcontinental country" thing is silly. Anyway, Spain has an even clearer claim: not only are the Canary Islands clearly off Africa, but Ceuta and Melilla are actually on the African mainland. France has territories in several continents, many of them legally integral parts of the country (not "territories" but "departements"). Both Attu and St. Lawrence Island (Alaska) are closer to Asia than to mainland Alaska; though Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are closer to Asia and South America than to North America, I suppose you could disqualify them as mere "territories". It's just fertile ground for quibbling. -- Macrakis 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tekleni, the article you quote is itself full of original research, I would say it is mainly original research.   Andreas   ^(T) 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Niko, the references you brought ( Ministry of Culture, MICHAŁ BZINKOWSKI) seem only to confirm the (obvious) fact that the Eleftheria i thanatos motto was used during the Revolution - that's not in doubt. It's also not in doubt that the motto is still familiar and popular as a national symbol today. But that's not the same as saying it's a state motto. To be that, shouldn't it be officially legislated somewhere, like the flag or national anthem (presumably)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I referred everybody to the 'attempted start of a debate at User_talk:Pruneau#Greek_motto', where I held the exact same position. I can't say if the motto then would be pertinent for today, and haven't found any documentation on that. I put it here as a continuation of that talk. OTOH, we Greeks have been raised with this motto. So, what do you think? •NikoSilver• 14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration: I heard that the motto was officialised by one of the early governments. Does anybody know if it has been abolished, or is it silently being neglected? •NikoSilver• 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we'd just need a reference. My personal criterion would be official definition as a state motto. A slightly more relaxed criterion, as used at our list of State mottos, would be at least official use. Is it part of some official coat of arms? Of an official state flag? Over on the list article, they included Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit for Germany just because it's printed on the margin of our Euro coins; apart from that it's just the beginning of the national anthem... That's a borderline case for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found anything of the sort for now. I'll check a little bit and get back. I suggest Tekleni does the same. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere 'officially' today. •NikoSilver• 15:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the above, I also found these:

• Cypriot Greek Association of the Michigan State University, claims the motto is the national motto of Greece and connects it to the number of the stripes in the Greek flag (9=number of syllables in Eleftheria i Thanatos).
• Oihalia Municipality attributes the same thing to 'tradition'
• Greek Army agrees
• ...and also includes it in historic archives
• Same the National Guard in Cyprus
• Chief of Greek Police in a National holiday decree

In particular, the Greek Army states:

Είναι δύσκολο να γνωρίζουμε τις αληθινές προθέσεις των υπευθύνων για την επιλογή της σημαίας. Κανείς δεν μπορεί να απαντήσει με ακρίβεια στα πιο πάνω ερωτήματα, αν και από το Δημοτικό ακόμη διδασκόμαστε πάνω-κάτω ότι "τα χρώματα της ελληνικής σημαίας (μπλε και άσπρο) συμβολίζουν τον ουρανό και τον αφρό της θάλασσας, ενώ οι εννέα γραμμές αντιστοιχούν στις εννέα συλλαβές της φράσης Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος". Το πιο πάνω "στιχάκι" δεν είναι από πουθενά τεκμηριωμένο, παρά μόνο έχει επικρατήσει στη λαϊκή αντίληψη, κατά παρόμοιο τρόπο με το "μύθο" της Αγίας Λαύρας. Για να μπορέσουμε να απαντήσουμε περιεκτικά και συνολικά τα δύο αυτά ερωτήματα, πρέπει να ανατρέξουμε σε πολλές πηγές και να καλύψουμε χρονικά όχι μόνο την επαναστατική περίοδο, αλλά και την αρχαϊκή και βυζαντινή εποχή.

and

Ερχόμενοι στην ερμηνεία των εννέα παράλληλων κυανόλευκων γραμμών, πρέπει να αναφέρουμε ότι η επικρατέστερη ερμηνεία φέρει τον αριθμό των γραμμών να αντιστοιχεί στις εννέα συλλαβές της φράσης "Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος", την οποία χρησιμοποιούσαν συχνότατα οι αγωνιστές της Επανάστασης, δηλώνοντας την απερίσπαστη προσήλωση και αφοσίωσή τους στην επίτευξη του υψηλότερου των αγαθών, της ελευθερίας, για την απόκτηση της οποίας δεν δέχονταν κανένα απολύτως συμβιβασμό και ήσαν πανέτοιμοι να την αποκτήσουν με όλα τα μέσα, δίνοντας ακόμη και την ίδια τους τη ζωή. Παραλλαγή αυτής της εκδοχής φέρει τον αριθμό των γραμμών να αντιστοιχεί στον αριθμό των γραμμάτων της λέξης Ελευθερία, το υπέρτατο αγαθό για κάθε άνθρωπο, ένα αγαθό για το οποίο οι Έλληνες στο ρου της ιστορίας πάντοτε πολεμούν και χύνουν αίμα για να το αποκτήσουν. Επίσης, θυμίζουμε ότι ο αριθμός εννέα (9) ανέκαθεν θεωρούνταν ιερός και μυστικιστικός, ενώ υπάρχει και η ερμηνεία ότι η εναλλαγή των κυανών και των λευκών γραμμών συμβολίζει τα κύματα του Αιγαίου Πελάγους. Έχει υποστηριχτεί ότι οι εννέα κυανόλευκες οριζόντιες λωρίδες συμβολίζουν τις εννέα Μούσες ή την αμερικανική σημαία (η χώρα αυτή βοήθησε την Ελλάδα αρκετά στον αγώνα). Η πιθανότερη εκδοχή, όμως, τη συσχετίζει με τη σημαία των αδελφών Καλλέργη, απογόνων του αυτοκράτορα Νικηφόρου Φωκά.

The Greek Army site seems to include a good amount of online and offline bibliography. Greek readers will understand the following summary:

• In elementary schools children are taught that the 9 lines symbolize the 9 syllables of 'Eleftheria i Thanatos'. This cannot be verified, but it is general public knowledge and it is the 'prevailing interpretation'.
• A parallel version attributes the number to the 9 letters of 'Ελευθερία' (only).
• It relates also to the sacred and mystic number for the Greeks, and the Nine Muses
• The most prevailing version is that it relates to the flags of Kallergis family, descendants of Nikiforos Phokas.

There are many more, and this issue appears to be 'general knowledge' in Greece, as evident from the relevant search: [18]

I wish I could be of more help. Niko Silver 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is cock full of vandalism, which seems to be elft for days and days before reversions are made. Peeps need to speed up.

Yes this article is a mess... - Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Greece's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Greece deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The EU is a supra-national entity. it is definately not an ordinary international organisation, and it is not (yet) a federation. maybe 'confederation' would be appropriate. but the fact that 25 european governments have shared their sovereighty and have transfered authorities from their states to Brussels (economy, agriculture, and in some fields: army, police, culture, trade, etc etc), and also that citizen can travel and reside in any member state as if they are in their own countries with the same privilleges, and since no borders exist and they have a common currency (i am bored to list more... read the respective article), the EU can definately be highlighted in every member-states article and in the infobox. apropos, read the CIA world factbook (last edition) and how it lists the EU. Regards Hectorian 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, — MJCdetroit 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) cool page :D

the article reads:

"the modern Greek state evolved after 1821-1830 as an independent Kingdom. It increased its territorial area up until 1922, which saw the collapse of the Greek presence in Asia Minor"

which is incorrect. The last territorial change in the Greek state was the addition of dodecanese in 1947. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orionorbit ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Is it my computer does anyone else notice the goddamn pics of dicks when you go the Greece article? I tried removing it but could not find its source. Zachorious 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank the gods it's gone. I'm still not sure what I did but whatever it was, I think it worked! Zachorious 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This was unrelated to the article. It was in the template Template:Please check ISBN.--    Avg    01:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? It was in the article for a while but now is gone. If the article you posted is suppossed to explain what you mean, then I hope it gets fixed. The page you provided is blank! Zachorious 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Avg is right. Thanks to both of you for helping. A vandal inserted that picture into the template code, and the contents of the template got automatically inserted here without showing up in the page source. The template is protected now, so it should be okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The opening history section has been over-shortened and now lacks context ; it leaps from the briefest account of early history to a detailed account of the 19th century, and lacks the critical linking passages about the continuity of Greek-speaking culture in the eastern mediterranean, and the accompanying illustrations; as well as the reasonable, brief account of the Hellenistic-Roman transition and brief account of Ottoman rule. I remember that the objection was that in places this content replicates what was available on History of Greece and other pages, but this is often the case as a matter of course on wiki, and more importantly altogether it provided an interlinking and combined overview not available on other pages . This is the only page that most people will look at for a broad knowledge of Greece, and it should provide a reasonably full , succinct overview of several pages and general context, in the way many country pages do.

The missing two or so paragraphs I think should be reintegrated and copied from one of the earlier revisions of a few months ago, and their length is also acceptably short in relation to the whole article, and given their importance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkl62 ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Jkl62 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1- Claiming there was a Greek majority in Asia minor is just like a joke.

2- "Following the regaining of control of Asia Minor by the Turkish forces and the destruction of Smyrna" sentence is not for neutral point of view.

3- Ethnicity of muslims exchanged in population exchange must be mentioned. -- BlueEyedCat 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1- Only following 1071 did the ethnic makeup of Asia Minor change. Or are you going to claim that there was a Turkish majority there since Trojan times or something ridiculous like that?

2- Smyrna was destroyed by the Turkish Army, deal with it. No conspiracy theory should be given equal weight with scholarly consensus.

3- They are a mixture of Turks, Roma and others.

1- We're talking about 1920's not 1071. In that time there never was a Greek majority in any Antolian city. Greeks even were not majority in north Greece that time.

2- Turks destroying their own city, could you please tell me why ? It was Europe feeded Greeks that were trying to invade Anatolia.

3- Ok, then it must be mentioned in the article.-- BlueEyedCat 05:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Smyrna had a Greek majority, George Horton was stationed there, he says so, it was commonly described as the last outpost of Hellenism in Anatolia, owing to this reason.

This is simple conjecture, whats more, its a non sequitur. I fail to see how the city, simply because it was part of the Ottoman Empire, would not have been burnt? The primary reason it was burnt is because Greeks were the majority in Smyrna.

( Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.172.117 ( talk • contribs)

as I remember the asssertion was that the area around smyrna contained a greek majority, not asia minor as a whole. I am also making other changes in this sentence order to remove the npov tag.

Kl999 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In some sections there are too many photos, and the article tends to look ugly.-- Yannismarou 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We have Wikimedia Commons for galleries of media. This article needs cleanup. Jkelly 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fixed now. Mitsos 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the city (as far as i know and i live at greece) is Patra and not Patras. I edit it but some people change it again. Is patra called Patras at English? if not why do you call it Patras and not patra.

Please see Patra and Patras, they are two different links.. The city is located at Patras and Patra is a disambiguation page. Cheers! Baristarim 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Patras is the common English name. Don't know where the "s" comes from, perhaps we stupid foreigners thought it sounded more Greek. :-) (and Baris is right of course about the other page being a dab.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that was the only reason I reverted. The other page was not the correct link to the city. Maybe I should have left a note in the edit summary, but there has been some sneaky edits lately and I wasn't sure what was going on. Sorry about that :) Baristarim 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying :), This is english wikipedia so if it is called Patras in English then it should stay that way. I wont change it again

I'm pretty sure that Patras (instead of Patra) is used in english because the original greek name used for the city is in plural, Patrai (πατραι) (in the same way Athens is called Athens, like in plural, instead of Athina). Thanks.

Talk partly relevant to the article yet uncentralized moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Greece.

How do we translate what is often referred to by Greek officials as μεταπολίτευση? For instance, 'από την μεταπολίτευση και μέχρι σήμερα...'. I suggest, 'from the establishment of the Third Hellenic Republic to this day...'; others suggest, 'from the 1974 political changeover...', but giving a date is confusing, the French certainly do not give dates for their 3eme or 4eme Republique. I do not think there exists an official Greek consensus yet. Politis 12:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably go for something like "since the reestablishment of democracy in 1974". I'd say that in most contexts it will be necessary to give the date - it's not a matter of any "official" usage, it's just that the clueless non-Greek reader will need the info. See Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the Greek monarchy was abolished in December 1974. GoodDay 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is poorly written, the Greek civilization dated from 3000 B.C, where is widely accepted that pelasgic civilization existed, the substantial Albanian population ( Arvanitas )in Greece is underestimated and their connection with ancient Greek civilization and pelasgic origin ignored. Dodona

Do you have any academic sources claiming Albanians had anything to do with Pelasgians? To my knowledge the origins of both Albanians and Pelasgians are unknown amongs scholars. We can't just reproduce Albanian nationalist folk tradition on Wikipedia. IRAKLIS

Yes i have many , but read Aristidh Kola Arvanites and the origin of Greeks ,originally published in new Greek language and represent years of research including Greek sources.He was academic arvanites and Greek killed by poisoning for the claim, in any way you should here what folk says as well.Dodona

When I was last in Meteora, late 2003, I saw no evidence of any 'special lifts' taking tourists up to the monasteries. On the contrary I had to climb rather a lot of steps. Is this really correct? kritikos99 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... in the past, monks used these lifts to get up to the monastary. Also, it was used as strategic way for protection against theives and invaders. The reason why there are steps now is 1)It would be pretty hard to deliver hundreds upon hundreds of tourists daily up to the top with a net and pulley system. 2)Greece is currently not involved in any land conflict, therefore the use of the pulley system has found itself obselete at this point.

Remember, although it is a monastary, it is also a very famous touristical destination. Therefore, the steps were built to accomodate those coming to visit the church. potsotsa (02/25/07)

I think we should change GDP and per capita income, because recently a re-evaluated GDP (increased by some 25%) was presented by the Greek Ministry of Economy. Thus current values for GDP and GDP per capita (PPP) are around $299 billion and $30,000 respectively. Please check the economist for example. What is your opinion? Thanx. 88.218.35.90 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be untimely considering the fact that the revised GDP figures have yet to be confirmed by Eurostat. Nevermind the fact that, although devoting a whole chapter to the revision, the 2007 budget still uses pre-revision figures. Stef79 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was viewing the specific topic about Greece and I noticed the major subject of monarchy in Greece. As I know from encyclopedias e.t.c the royal family has been abolished in 1975 but In my opinion is not wise the Ex-royal family to be represented with an URL in the Greek portal. The Greek constitute does not recognise any royal family even the ex-royal members, so it would be wise to delete the direction URL to the site of the so-called Royal family because in reality doesn't exist for Greece, except some royalists who still believe to them. It is their right to believe everything they want, but the official decision of the Greek parliament and the constitution is that are not recognised. For further information about this subject I can mention the encyclopedias and the books which refer the decisions of Greece upon the subject of Ex-royal family but I'm not doing this right now because of the copyright issue which I respect. Curunvir 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is not on the European continent, but in the Eu. It needs to have a different color on the map. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Well i would like to know some popular greek names to work on my project so if you know popular greek names please tell me them i would like to know them for a project for school thanks bye Wiki8898 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Wiki8898

Andreas is quite popular, I knew a few Greek friends with that name.

Also theres a name that is pronounced (but unsure of spelling) Kamaikamous or something like that.

If you're really stuck, use some Medieval names like:

Komnenus Alexius

I wish I knew more. I hope that helps. Tourskin 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"View of the mythical mountain" is hardly the correct wording. Oh no, the mountain is truly real and made of rock. I think the picture caption should be changed to legendary. It has ample legends behind it and myths too, but its not mythical. Unless of course, the photograph somehow captured a non-existent mountain. Tourskin 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to revert again the latest change, but which one is considered higher in Greece? Obviously I am assuming the PM has more power, but as is in most European countries the Pres is still considered to be in a higher position. Is there a different status in Greece? Baristarim 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The President is the country's official Head of State and is considered to be the "first citizen" ("πρώτος πολίτης").However, his office is largely symbolic and he has no real power.That's why it's always widely respected but unambitious old men who get nominated for it :) -- Jsone 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Baristarim, in Greece, the President's office is higher than that of the PM. But, like in most cases where there is both a PM and a President, the latter has less power and has more symbolic functions. -- Kimon ^talk 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The President's function is to preserve the constitution. From List of Presidents of Greece: "Though the President of Greece is the Head of State of the Greek nation and holds the first place in the Greek Order of precedence, he holds very little power and is largely a figurehead. The Prime Minister of Greece is the active chief executive of the Greek government." --- DimTsi 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else encountered being redirected to the Greece article through Wikipedia:Sandbox? wtf?

Accession to the European Union January 1, 1981 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.241.157 ( talk) 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost has about 20,000 members (look http://img.pathfinder.gr//clubs/files/60167/1.html -in greek). The other Pentecostals are about 12,000 (look http://www.pentecost.gr/English/history.htm) Travis8 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guys! Here are the citations you need need for the Greek Pentecostals. But I don't know how to get it in the main article! Can you help me, please?

About FACP: http://img.pathfinder.gr//clubs/files/60167/1.html About other Pentecostals: http://www.pentecost.gr/English/history.htm

Thanx, Travis8 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I believe the link to West in the second paragraph of the article should point to Western world. Can someone fix it?

I really want to get this article up to at least A class, and I'm going to run through and see what needs to be done, but can anyone give me any pointers on things that really need to be rewritten, what needs to be sourced etc? -- NeroDrusus 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)