Talk:Greeks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Greeks has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Section "sea"

Added new section "Sea" under culture. Please discuss if you think it should stay. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It is central to the Greek element. The details are also great. Dr.K. (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks feel free to add anything you feel is missing. Nikos allready made some great additions.Xenovatis (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. The section is already well written and covers all the basics. However I'll still try to find anything fitting enough to be included. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While the section covers a very important aspect of Greek culture, don't you think the current order of people and events mentioned is a bit messy? It jumps from a 20th century Greek poet to a 6th century explorer. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did as you suggested. Please feel free to improve it further yourself any way you see fit. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Hellene

Sounds like there’s no actual fact of how the word Hellene originated. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out David. I added a source on the etymology of Hellene (Etymonline traces it to Hellen) and the etymological information of Hellen from Wiktionary. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any WP:RS that address the etymology of Hellen either confirmiing the "bright" thesis or disproving it. Accroding to another source, Roberts, the name spread among the proto-greek speakers who conquered the Greek peninsula to differentiate themselves from the native populations.Xenovatis (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myceneans

I just edited the opening phrase of the Myceneans section, but I have a citation problem. My source for the edit is Vermeule's Greece in the Bronze age, but I have only the Greek publication Η Ελλάς την Εποχή του Χαλκού, Αθήνα 1983. The relevant excerpt can be found in page 77 of the Greek edition: 'Το φυλετικό όνομα Μινύες πρέπει επίμονα να διακριθεί από την αρχαιολογική ετικέτα "Μινύες", που χρησιμοποιείται για τους εισβολείς, οι οποίοι φέρνουν τη μεσοελλαδική εποχή στην Ελλάδα. Μας είναι εντελώς άγνωστο πώς ονόμαζαν τους εαυτούς τους αυτοί οι νεόφερτοι. Γίνεται γενικά παραδεκτό ότι ήταν το πρώτο κύμα πραγματικών Ελλήνων που ήλθε στην Ελλάδα". If somebody has the English edition at hand, could he/she be kind enough to add the reference with the page number from the original?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the Mycenaeans. The book is not available in Google book, scholar or Amazon. If no one comes forward with the page number you can use the English ttitle and unless someone challenges the translation this should be sufficient per WP:RSUE sincce it is not a direct quote but rather a citation, i.e. the information is the same and the phrasing doesn't matter since it is not used in a quote.
Emily Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 1964, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226853543.
Xenovatis (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. There's no need to insert the english passage in the footnote. I just wrote it so that everybody can see what I had in mind. The page number is important though and it would be nice if somebody can provide this piece of information --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article is getting better in terms of factual accuracy but still needs work.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It would also benefit by someone editting from a modernist and post-nationalist perspective in order for that POV to be included as well. I will try to edit away several references to greeks and change them to greek speakers.Xenovatis (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surnames

I do believe that wrong information appeared in the surname section.

"The suffix -akis/-aki is associated with Crete and the Aegean islands, a diminutive signifying "little" and thought to derive from the time of the Turkish occupation, therefore "Theodorakis" being "little Theodore"."

The prefix "akis" (άκης) is not diminutive in surnames and does not derive from the Turkish occupation. It is similar to Maniot “Akos” and it has the meaning of "Son of" (typical patronymic) which means that "Theodorakis" (although literally means "little Theodore") it has the meaning of "Son of Theodore" ( to be more precise is the "young one of Theodore"). Surnames in “akis” are also common in Mani which never had Turkish ocupation. (According to one theory “Akis” originated from “akos” and first appeared in Mani).
I was able to find a source about the presence of Akis in Mani. In the “Μορφή και εξέλιξη των Μανιάτικων επωνύμων by Λευτέρη Αλεξάκη, Δ/ντή στο Κέντρο Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών” a passage is clear about common use of those endings which are described as patronymic. http://www.mani.org.gr/fonimanis/2001/1_2001epif_epon.htm

“Ο πυρήνας του μανιάτικου επωνύμου προέρχεται, στο μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό, όπως και σε άλλες περιοχές της Ελλάδας, από πατρώνυμο, παρωνύμιο (παρατσούκλι), επαγγελματικό ή εθνικό όνομα (πατριδωνυμικό) με την προσθήκη, συνήθως, των παραγωγικών καταλήξεων -άκης, -έας, -άκος και σπανιότατα -άρος, -ούνης (ούνιας).”

The supposed forced use of “Akis” by the Turks is an urban legend of Crete and has appeared in recent years. I don’t know if there is even a source that backs it up beside hear saying.

Unless there is objection the article should state that the ending "akis" is partronymic, used not only in Crete and that it has nothing to do with Turkish ocupation.(unless there are ofcourse source that sugest otherwise).
Seleukosa (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ammended as per suggestion. Please feel free to make any further changes yourself as per WP:BOLD. We can always discuss any issues that come up per WP:BRD. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis you are lighting fast!!!!!!!! Seleukosa (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Greek Architecture

Mycenean Architecture would eventually lead to the formation of Classical Greek Architecture and Hellenistic Architecture This claim seems a bit wild and the repetition of the word architecture is superfluous. Does anybody have the exact quotation from Chadwick? Be that as it may, he was a linguist and not and expert on Greek architecture. The verb "lead" can have several meanings and the suggestion about the process is not clear. Recent scholarship (Gruben, Mazarakis Ainian) suggest very different and much more complex origins for later greek architecture, but that would fall out of the article's scope. I think the sentence should be either rephrased or omited. Any objections?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ceratinly fine by me. Thanks Giorgo.Xenovatis (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 17 million

  1. Counting up to Switzerland the total is 13.7 million.
  2. All the other countries from the Greek Diaspora article sum to about 0.1 million
  3. Including the extra 1.7 million (assuming all 3 million US citizens of Greek ancestry consider themselves Greek) gives 15.5 million.
  4. This is 1.5 million short of the number 17 million quoted
  5. The assumption that those of Greek ancestry in the US consider themselves Greek is not borne by the census findings.
  6. Prevelakis, in the reference section, gives a figure for the Greek diaspora of somewhat below 5 million. Using that and adding the Greek population of Greece (10.2) and Cyprus (0.6) yields about the same at somewhere below 15.8 million.
  • I propose the total be revised to either 15.5 or (preferably) 16 million, which is still an overestimate but significantly closer to the numbers we give. Hence WP will be internally consistent and all its numbers will agree with each other, something that is not true now. I do realize that 17 is the number usually quoted in Greece but it doesn't seem to be borne by the facts we have seen so far.Xenovatis (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see 10.2 mil (GR) + 1.3 mil (USA) + .6 (CYP) + .4 (UK) + .37 (AUS) + .32 (DE) +.22 (CAN) + 477821 (rest of them) = 13,890,747 million. Plus an additional 3 mil that claim Greek ancestry in the USA (I don't care whether or not they practice being Greek, they are still, partly or fully Greek), = 16.8 million thus the approx of 17 million. El Greco(talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That is your mistake! It is not an additional 3 million but 3 million total, so the additional figure is 3-1.3=1.7, hence the lower count.Xenovatis (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. You can't claim 1.2 million Greeks and then say that 3 million Greeks are in the US. The 1.2 is to those who select Greek as their main ethnicity, while the additional 3 million are those who maintain another ethnicity, other than Greek, and thus identify with that ethnicity, thus you get the additional 3 million who claim Greek decendents. Why state 1.2 million Greeks live in the USA, then state there are a total of 3 million Greeks in total? El Greco(talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The source used for the 3m numbers states: An estimated three million Americans resident in the United States claim Greek descent. This includes everything from those claiming to be descented from the right testicle of Socrates and the left testicle of Paleologus to those who report one of their great-grandfathers was Greek, and everything in between. The discrepancy between the 3m figure and the 1.2m figure is due to not all of them identifying as Greek. In fact only 1.2m do and this really means the rest shouldn't be included at all let alone double counted like you insist on doing. Greek ancestry is different to being Greek.Xenovatis (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Whose, double counting? You're basing your info on some guys estimation when the numbers say otherwise. 1.2 million Greeks live in the USA, and an additional 3 million Americans claim Greek descendent's. You do the math. El Greco(talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You are doublecounting because you are reading "additional". The source never uses that word. That's what I am trying to explain to you all this time. Read the source: An estimated three million Americans resident in the United States claim Greek descent this includes those who self-identify as Greek as well as those who don't. So the 1.2m is a subset of the 3m.Xenovatis (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno on that one. Let's find the missing million if we want to add it to the total claimed by Greece. Actually, I'm somewhat impressed Greece only claims one more million. I've seen much worse in our neighborhood. NikoSilver 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"The strength of Greeks has never been in numbers but in truth". What did I say again the homosexual!Xenovatis (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
El Greco, where do you base that it is 1.3+3.0=4.3 instead 3.0 (which includes 1.3 and another 1.7)? Have I rushed to misunderstand something? NikoSilver 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll then settle for 10.2 + .624 + 5.51 = 16.3 million. El Greco(talk) 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the above, the MFA site makes no mention of Greek population in Albania, estimates of which range from 60,000 (Albanian 1989 census, dubious) to 400,000 (from the "Epirot lobby", equally dubious). If we take the average, that's about 230,000. Also, there is the question of whether these figures include Greek Cypriots in the diaspora. For example, the Greek Cypriots article mentions 200,000 Greek Cypriots living in the UK, a number which I have heard frequently. Yet the MFA site lists only 212,000 Greeks in the UK, which in all likelihood does not include the Cypriots (as that would imply only 12,000 non-Cypriot Greeks). So if we add the 0.23 and 0.2 to El Greco's numbers, we get 16.7 million. Personally, I think something like 14-17 million in the infobox would be best, since that includes both the lowball and highball estimates and after all, the definition of who is a Greek is itself fuzzy. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The number 400,000 for the UK includes Greeks from Cyprus and that is the number used in the table in the article. If there is further information on the Greek diaspora from Cyprus it should also be included in the table. My main concern is that the quoted number is supported with references and agrees with the data in the table.Xenovatis (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another question. Do those number also include the Sub groups of the Greeks like the Pontics? Obviously those counted in Greece, yes, but what about elsewhere? Which is why I think a range would be better. El Greco(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I should think so. There is no other documented Greek migration to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan save for that of the Pontic Greeks and a few thousand political refugees in the 50's. Equally the 128,000 stated by the MFA for Russia and the 100k for Ukraine explicitly mention them to be mostly Pontic Greeks. Actually I find it a bit offensive that the Greek MFA does not mention the Cypriot Greeks as part of the UK Greek community.Xenovatis (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So, then shouldn't that 128k and 100k be added as well to the infobox? Currently, Russia says 98k and Ukraine 92k. El Greco(talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
By all means do so but make sure to add the correct citations so that numbers agree with what the sources say. Might need to doublecheck the Ukraine number btw. Actually if you can be bothered the whole table could be updated, eg the 2006 US census lists 1.35m Greeks, the Greece census is from 2001 etc.Xenovatis (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Could you summarise your objections to the change please? I removed fringe books and websites - Nazis used as primary sources and crazy Christian coalition pseudohistorians, I replaced it with accurately represented quotes from the best mainstream academic sources on the subject.... Is there a problem? Can we please discuss it point by point rather than with a wholesale revert? Nobody wants a pointless edit war. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If antihellenists are worried about their bedfellows they should consider changing beds. I seem to remember your usefull contributions in the Pontic Greek Genocide talk page as well...
  • The sources cited currently are not fringe since they are used to illustrate the acceptance of this position among fringe circles, i.e. they are talking about themselves and not used to substantiate or prove a point. What is fringe is presenting 19th century pseudoscience in depth and using it to prove your points as you did for Fallmerayer.
  • Please provide a full quote of the academic source you had in mind and it will be discussed.
  • Re the genetic origins sources will be provided. Fact-tag them in the meantime. The conclusion is obvious from the table in the article but if you wish to game the system I will oblidge you, for the moment.
  • Some of the rest of your changes may be salvageable. Please provide the proposed ammendment so it is obvious exactly what you intend to add. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And here I've never even heard of the concept "antihellenist" before. Why is it a redlink? (Joke. Please don't create it.)
I doubt fish have a word for water either.Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not my points. I quote the paramount living authority on national identity - a reliable, modern, secondary source - on the subject of Fallmerayer. I don't think that that qualifies as fringe by any definition.
You misquoted Smith presenting only those few paragraphs that support your prejudices and antihellenism. The full text of Smith's analysis must be presented and I will do so. In particular the conclusion where Smith affirms the cultural continuity of Hellenism.
  • Here's the complete quote from Anthony D. Smith:

    Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not only of Byantium but also of ancient Greece and their classical Hellenic civilisation. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the nineteenth century) "descent" was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenutous, at worst non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries by massive influxes of Avar, Slav, and later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that immigrants succeeded in occupying most of Central Greek and the Peloponnese pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilisation to the East...It also meant that modern Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.

Here is the complete quote from Smith, including the parts that Relato, for some reason which I am sure is completely innocent and in good faith, somehow forgot to publish:
National Identity, Anthony D. Smith, p. 28-31

ETHNIC CHANGE, DISSOLUTION AND SURVIVALThe importance of these and other factors can also be seen when we turn to the closely related questions of how ethnies change in character, dissolve or survive. Let me start with ethnic change and with a well-known example, that of the Greeks. Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not merely of Greek Byzantium, but also of the ancient Greeks and their classical Hellenic civilization. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the early nineteenth century), ‘descent’ was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenuous, at worst non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries AD by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and, later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modem Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.’ There is a sense in which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity, now and earlier, and irrelevant. It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, fellt that their ‘Greekness’ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such filiations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ‘super-family’ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece. For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ‘Greek revival’ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage. This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years

  • I actually know something about the haplotype in question since it has long been used in contentious claims related to caste articles in India. I thus know that finding an unambiguous statement will be difficult, and inappropriate. That's the reason I removed it, not to "game the system."
Nonetheless here it is [1] Currently tracking the original research paper which will be included as well. The claims however are sourced in a WP:RS and by statements from one of the academics involved in the study.Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Found it.
Ornella Semino et.al, Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of y-chromosome haplogroups e and j: inferences on the neolithization of europe and later migratory events in the mediterranean area, American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004 May, 74, 5 p.p. 1023-34

The phylogeography of Y-chromosome haplogroups E (Hg E) and J (Hg J) was investigated in >2,400 subjects from 29 populations, mainly from Europe and the Mediterranean area but also from Africa and Asia. The observed 501 Hg E and 445 Hg J samples were subtyped using 36 binary markers and eight microsatellite loci. Spatial patterns reveal that (1) the two sister clades, J-M267 and J-M172, are distributed differentially within the Near East, North Africa, and Europe; (2) J-M267 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people; (3) E-M81 is typical of Berbers, and its presence in Iberia and Sicily is due to recent gene flow from North Africa; (4) J-M172(xM12) distribution is consistent with a Levantine/Anatolian dispersal route to southeastern Europe and may reflect the spread of Anatolian farmers; and (5) E-M78 (for which microsatellite data suggest an eastern African origin) and, to a lesser extent, J-M12(M102) lineages would trace the subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans to the west. A 7%-22% contribution of Y chromosomes from Greece to southern Italy was estimated by admixture analysis.

Xenovatis (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And here for the abstractXenovatis (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I rather think all my changes, which were carefully designed, are "salvageable".
Best not to assume I'm here because I want to ruin the article, OK? Collegiality is a good thing. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: thanks to User:Kekrops for correctly modifying my wording. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. All these can only be opinions, ultimately. Smith says the dearth of demographic evidence is "unfortunate" for the "classicist Hellenic myth", but it is equally unfortunate for the opposing myth. So the "original" Greeks were pushed to the Aegean islands and the undefined "coastal areas", presumably referring to Asia Minor. Where are these Greeks now, if not in Greece? The argument is as flawed as it is simplistic, as if the only Greeks on the planet were the Arvanites Fallmerayer happened to meet in the tiny "Greece" of the time. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That banker (it rhymes) Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer never even set foot in Greece, before the book in question was published. He wrote his book in Constantinople where the Ottoman Sultan honored him with a firman for his scholarship[2]. I kidd you not people, you just can't make this stuff up...Xenovatis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... sorry for being the σπαστικος in this case, but Fallmerayer actually visited Greece in 1833 and even met with Kyriakos Pittakis, one of the pioneers of Greek Archaeology. This meeting started a nasty controversy involving the so called Αναργύρεια Αποσπάσματα which were later discredited as forgeries. Fallmerayers most important contribution was the History of Trebizond which is considered a classic, but other than that his work on Morea was largely rejected by both 19th and 20th century scholars. I am frankly amazed by the fact that Smith, who in generalis very reliable, chose Fallmerayer as a source. Sorry Xenovatis but Φίλος μεν Πλάτων, φιλτάτη η αλήθεια--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Anthony D. Smith is indeed a highly respectable scientist, but... this does not mean that he is right on Fallmerayer. Fallmerayer made indeed some very important contributions on the medieval history of Greece and was indeed right in many points. Since his time more than a century of scholarship has passed and the historiography of medieval Greece is now a completely different landscape. Quoting Fallmerayer as a prime source for the history of Medieval Greece is just like quoting Gibbon for the history of the Roman Empire and ignoring 140 years of scientific research. As for his controversial status as a historian I can give (for now) only one source W. R. Loader, in Greeks Ancient and Modern, Greece & Rome, Vol. 18, No. 54 (Oct., 1949), p. 121, Published by the Cambridge University Press states:

During the recent German occupation of Greece the occupying authority published a number of brochures in which it was argued that the modern Greeks have nothing whatever in common with the ancient Greeks. These brochures were circulated among German troops with the object of stifling any sympathy or admiration which the ordinary soldier might feel for the present-day Greeks as descendants of the ancient Athenians and Spartans. [...] In part, this propaganda was a revival of Fallmerayer's theory that the Greeks, as a race, vanished in the Middle Ages, their blood being at first diluted and then swamped by that of Slav invaders".

I can't provide further sources for the time being, but if need be, I will look it up so as to dissolve any doubts concerning the controversial nature of Fallmerayer's thesis.Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A few points.
  • Fallmerayer is mentioned because of his importance to the development of the historiography of the Greek nation, not quoted as a genuine source.
I retained your description of F's thesis.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but his contorversial nature is not at all supported by the orginal quote: "As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago..." which implies a wholesale adaptation of Fallmerayer's thesis as a "genuine" source and is contrary to modern scholarship (Charanis, Vryonis, Vasilief, and I believe also Laiou, Ostrogorsky). By the way Smith is not a Byzantinist--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That he is 'controversial', I think emerges from the description of the reaction that Paparrigopoulos spearheaded. (Can we call them P and F now? Takes too much time otherwise.)
OKXenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That F was used by the Nazis, and still is by white power types, is really not that useful to a main article.
I rather think it is. F was not motivated by a love of science nor are most of those who quote him today. F wanted to stem Euro support for Greece in order to help build up the Ottomans as a bulwark against Slavic expansion.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is important to distinguish between those parts of F's thesis that appear generally contested and those that are not. Few historians appear to contest his statements re historical evidence of ethnic continuity, which is what Smith picks up on above. What has been generally discredited is his assumption that national continuity depends on ethnic continuity which is, after all, precisely 19th c racial thinking.
Agreed there. Please ammend as appropriate.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor point. Fallmerayer claimed that the greek speaking population was utterly supplanted in all of the Morea and most of mainland Greece by the new-comers. This idea of a wholesale dissapearance of the greek speakers is not contested by few, but by most.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That, for example, is what Constantinos Dimaras focused on. The question of Greek national continuity remains open internationally, but settled domestically. (Interesting passages on history textbooks in Greece I cam across which I will provide if anyone's interested.)
Please do. International opinion is irrelevant since foreigners only learnt about the ancients from Greeks in the first place and only a few centuries ago at that.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the section is to be changed, it needs to be expanded to focus on the paralysing question of late 19th c domestic Greek nationhood: the place of the Byzantines. The question of whether the ethnos was Greek or Greco-Christian is what people were quarreling over, and P himself moved from Athens to Byzantium over the course of his life. Like a belief in national continuity today has political causes and consequences, so also did in that period the course of that imagined continuity - Orthodox or Democratic? (There is also a fascinating subtext through the 1960s of Marxist infighting about the nature of Greek nationhood in the late Roman era, with Greek Marxists rejecting 'bourgeois' national continuity and Moscow's 'Slavophile' theses alike.)
That's a good point. If you want to condence it to one or two para's it could be included. Preferably one though as the section has already expanded appreciably.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That explains why you're responding as you are to the quote above. Perhaps I will locate something that demonstrates that the lack of evidence of ethnic continuity does not rule out or in the possibility of national continuity.
Not but let's see about explaining your stance. Since the 15th century, when they found out about the classics by some non-descript people (they called them Greeks if you are interested) Westerners have constructed their identity by appropriating the Greek and Roman heritage for themselves and to do that you needed to discredit the actual Greeks and Romans. It became necessary for the Westerners to prove that Greeks are not really Greek or Roman so that they could then emerge as the only legitimate heirs to the classical tradition. Medieval Westerners declined to call the Byzantine Greeks Romans and called them Greeks instead because they were interested in appropriating the Roman heritage for themselves. Modern Westerners are more interested in appropriating the Greek heritage but they follow the same old tricks. Incidentally the rationale is the same as that employed by the Christian churches who need to discredit the Jews in order to emerge as the true interpreters and legatees of scriptural promises, replacement theology. In short this is the same old tale in different guise. You will forgive me then if I don't sound too impressed by your psychobubble.Xenovatis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, while I was writing this Xenovatis posted above. Well, I hope I've made it clearer. Again, remember to avoid being snide about good faith. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A few more notes on Xenovatis' revision: there's still the Nazi nonsense in there, which I see no reason for, frankly. Also, the claim of "cultural continuity" being focused on as far back as the 12th c is misleading; it became central only in the 19th c. Finally to claim that it is uncontested is difficult: cultural continuity is not the same as a sense of nationhood, either, and it is the latter that is uncontested, as seen in the above Smith quote. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually do not disagree with most of your comments above. Indeed cultural continuity has nothing to do with national or even worse ethnic(see racial) continuity. Your original quotation was quite short though and the way it was chopped seemed to sanctify Fallmerayer's research, which is far from doing justice neither to his motives nor to his views. As for your remark "That explains why you're responding as you are to the quote above" think twice and try to "avoid being snide about" what others think or have been taught. We are not pretending to be the super-direct-offspring of ancient Greeks in here. So there is no need for vexation--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And yes. Most of your points about the "continuity" discussion should be included in the article--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as the Nazi refs go they are usefull because they highlght that the Western stance on the issue is not inherently neutral nor shaped by academic concerns alone, as it is presented. Indeed one could describe the preponderance of very white and indeed very blonde and blue eyed people in Hollywood movies and other Western representations of Ancient Greece as being as revealing as it is unhistorical. Same goes, alot more in fact, for the paleo-conservatives.
  • When Britannice discussed the modern Greek identity it traces it to the twelfth century. I don't disagree on the impact of Romantic nationalism and I have mentioned it in the article. These ideas did indeed spread widely only in the 19th century after the Neohellenic Enlightenment so qualifying it that way would be OK.
  • I will rephrase the sentence from Smith then.Xenovatis (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I had already asked 3dAlcove to check the article for nationalism and Relata Refero's presence here has been very helpfull in that respect. I think the Modern vs Ancient section could do with a lot of improvement and would like to see ideally a synthesis of Relata's views. While the section has allready expanded the issue will be contested in any reviews and it needs to be thorougly explored and non-Greek POV's included.Xenovatis (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

About modern and ancient Greeks. There is no need to write every theory historians with a political agenda are trying to promote. Who cares. Just mention if there is a genetical connection between the two and add the sources of geneticist and anthorpologists. That's enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianatomia (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cypriots in canada

i just wanted to state that although the footnotes states that 'an additional 3,395 Cypriots live in Canada... not clear whether they are Greek or Turkish'- the statistics that i have found are actually higher (4,285)- refrence: Talat S. Halman in Stephen Thernstrom, ed., Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 992–96 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthonly (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources has a collumn for other declarations of ethnicity. Of those Cypriots 2,600 have declared another ethnicity as well (either Greek or Turkish it doesn't say) and only 800 have declared themselves to be just Cypriots. I will guess that these 800 are Greek since the raison d'etre of Turkish Cypriots was always to distance themselves from Cyprus and if possible to seccede, which they forced with their invasion and ethnic cleansing. So the Canada number would only differ by +800 at most. I don't really think this is equivalent to stating that an extra 1.7m US citizens are of Greek descent and this qualification would have to be included as well which would be too much detail for an infobox. There are important sections of the article that need a lot of improvement. Let's concentrate on those instead. Best.Xenovatis (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
First, it's not clearly stated what ethnicity, Greek or Turkish, they belong. Second, are you to tell me for the sake of space we're not going to include people? I find that harsh, regardless of how large or small the size is. It only takes up one extra line in the template. El Greco(talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[3]

Respondents who reported multiple ethnic origins are counted more than once in this table, as they are included in the multiple responses for each origin they reported. For example, a respondent who reported 'English and Scottish' would be included in the multiple responses for English and for Scottish.

Again you are confusing additional. If you read the source the additional number is 830. My proposal would be to add this to the total and change the footnote to "An additional 830 Cypriots live in Canada" since any Cypriots who simply declare themselves as Cypriots are going to be Greeks.Xenovatis (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is that suppose to mean? any Cypriots who simply declare themselves as Cypriots are going to be Greeks What, there are no Turkish Cypriots? No Greco-Turkish Cypriots? Come on. El Greco(talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It means that the additional only refers to 830 people not the 3000 you wrongly insist on. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of "additional", you made the same error in the previous discussion.Xenovatis (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, you include the larger number, 3395. 830 Cypriots may be of one ethnicity but 2565 include those that claim more than one ethnicity. Since it's unable to determine which you include the 3395 in the article. You have trouble in understanding that. El Greco(talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

the article is well cited, factual, well structured and neutral. also it is broad in its coverage. I will pass this article gladly. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by PMCosovski

If editors want to alter numbers cited in sourced they need to ensure they can read English first the source on France for example was changed from 35,000 to 15,000 when the MFA data cites 15,000 and another 20,000 in the South. Clearly this is wrong. I will be reverting these edits.Xenovatis (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you translate the data from the french government it states,

Greek Community in France:15 000 (9th rank in the World), now the www.diplomatie.gouv.fr is source on many wiki pages in terms of the ethnic groups. Just beacuase you do not like the number does not mean it is wrong.

The Number of Greeks in italy is not 30,000 but rather 6831 as is stated in the official government figures.

Another reversion! the swedish census counted 10,749 but once again you have inflated the figures to 14,000 for the foreign ministry figures!

How can there be 15,000 greeks in serbia, when the lowest recorded ethnic group was at 2210????

Serbia : http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf Sweden: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0101_2005A01_BR_BE0106TAB.pdf France : http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/grece_187/presentation-grece_1362/donnees-generales_831.html Italy  :http://demo.istat.it/str2006/

Why is it that the official figures are not accepted??/ P m kocovski (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All the data is sourced from the competent source, the Greek MFA and includes both Greek nationals (i.e. people coming from Greece) and Diaspora Greeks who are not nationals of Greece like Cypriots and Greeks whose ancestors were never citizens of Greece like Pontians, Alexandrians, Calabrians etc. I am not surprised you missed that point, since unlike some others, Greeks are not a constructed nation dependent on their political nationality for their identity. This is the cause of the discrepancy in the Italy figures and the MFA takes that into account. The only useful source is the one for Serbia since the MFA does not state any figures in this case and the figure comes from a newspaper. I will be ammending that. The rest are all sourced. Sorry if the sourced information is not to your liking.Xenovatis (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleting sources and referenced statements is vandalism and hence was reverted. If you want to include the data you first have to understand it. The censi reference people from Greece not Greeks in general. The MFA refers to Greeks in general so the figure is obviously larger. If you check the numbers for Canada for example only 60% of ethnic Greeks there hail from Greece About 90,000 also declare another identity so come mainly from the Diaspora and some from Cyprus.Xenovatis (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, I think it may be wise to stick to the census data where it's available. The Greek Foreign Ministry's estimates can go at the page Greek diaspora (where min-max ranges of the available estimates can be used). I also think that there should be a maximum number of countries in the infobox here, possibly 15 or 20. The infobox is intended just to give a brief overview of the undisputed situation, the main article for the Greek population worldwide is Greek diaspora (I've been meaning to update that article for a long time). I understand it's just citizenship, but don't think it makes much difference; it's still the minimum number and will definitely cover those with a firm national identity.--Dexippus (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was to avoid exactly that a min-max range, since it would be usightly. Otherwise I agree. Cossovski can re-enter the census data, but Serbia should not be included and they need to be in descending order by number and alphabetically. There are now 22 countries, I don't see an issue with shortening it to 20 or 15. I only added a few more to bring it to equal length with the end of the CS. BTW I would be willing to work on the Greek diaspora article and making some of the articles for the Greek communities in other countries that are currently redlinked. I suggest some collaboration in this, we could split the countries etc. I have allready created the five that were redlinked in the Greeks banner. What say you?Xenovatis (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
With the Greek diaspora article I was thinking of basing it on the Foreign Ministry's page, using their data as a starting point and dividing the tables by continent. This has the added benefit that it'd be easier to maintain them in proper order (descending by number) after we've added the official census data to the ranges. Census data is usually lower than the MFA's figures, so the order would be determined by them as it currently is.--Dexippus (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunno, I 'd prefer to see where the larger communities are at the top. Let's get started tommorow and we'll see.Xenovatis (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this acceptable, put the official census figures (where available) on this page Greeks and seeing as you plan on revamping the Greek Diaspora page. You can create a column -Official Statistics and another column -Other Estimates (which would include the MFA estimates. Also with the MFA their figures are generally inflated when compared to census results so if you base the figures on the MFA estimates their is serious flaws. As well you have said that the figures take into account the 'diaspora' when many countries like france, sweden, italy, serbia are different to countries like georgia, russia and turkey. Where their actually is the old diaspora. I believe that having the firm census results is less diputable than estimates from a pro-greek source. For now is it OK if we first add the censused and official figures, and after that list is exhausted we can add the references from the hellenic foreign ministry? P m kocovski (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The additions are a mess. You left out Sweden and Kazakhstan both of which have census data in excess of 10,000. It should stay to only those countries with community larger than 30,000. And South Africa isn't on the list.Xenovatis (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i didnt have enough time to add SW and kazahkstan. Will you accept 10,000 as a benchmark, or will continue using estimates??? P m kocovski (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

30,000 is fine for a threshold.Xenovatis (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough P m kocovski (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

==Remarks==--Tsourkpk (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Xenovatis' kind request, I offer a detailed peer-review:

General
  • Make use of the templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite book, Template:cite encyclopedia and Template:cite news.
  • IMO "References" and "Further reading" should not be mixed. After all you true "references" are your "notes", where you include all the data of the books you use, without having a separate "References" section.
  • The "See also" section should be trimmed. Do not put there articles already linked within the text.
  • The article certainly needs copyediting. But the content and the layout should be first improved and finalized. Then, the prose will come, and I can invite some of the best copy-editors to come to the article and give it a shot.
The lead
  • In citation 19 there is no page.
  • In citation 20 Encarta is not a verifiable source per WP:VERIFY. I cite from Britannica: "Except in Cyprus, southern Albania, and Turkey, there are no major enclaves of Greeks in nearby countries, although Greek expatriate communities play a distinctive role in western Europe, North and South America, and Australia." What do you think?
  • Another expert from Britannica which could be used in the lead: "The inherent instability of the Balkan Peninsula—located as it is at the crossroads of invading Turks, migrating Slavs, and colonizing powers from western or central Europe (Venetians, Austro-Hungarians)—has bequeathed a bewildering amount of cultural confusion to Greece. Even in the south or on the islands, centuries of population migration and forced population exchanges continued well into the 20th century."
Infobox
  • CIA Factbook say Greek Orthodox 98% and Muslims 1,3%, but It also says Greeks 93%, "others" (?!) 7%. Is this consistent?
History
  • Maybe the "History" section could be a bit shorter, since there is already the History of Greece article, but again this may just be a personal preference. And "Modern" is disproportionally small compared to the other sections, and it seems to me that the two paragraphs of the sections have more to do with minorities that with history.
  • "When Alexander the Great's armies overthrew the Persian Empire and spread Greek culture from the Adriatic to the Indian Ocean they were laying the foundations for a new era." Verbalism IMO.
  • Citation 37 has no page.
  • Why heading "Roman" for the Byzantine period?!
  • Page in citation 43?
  • In citation 47 we have the quote, but the page?
  • Page in citation 53?
  • Page in citation 22?
  • Almost nothing in "Modern" about the populations' exchange. You just repeat what you say in the lead. Isn't any analysis needed?
Identity
  • "While Byzantine Greeks called themselves Rhomioi, they valued the classical tradition, considered themselves the political heirs of Rome". I have read that more than one in several sections. I think it gets a bit repetitive.
  • We do not wikilink centuries. Only full dates.
  • Edit properly citation 76, using the Template:cite news.
  • Fix properly citations 79, 80, 81 and 82, using Template:cite journal.
  • "Recent genetic analyses of Greek populations have provided evidence of statistically significant continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (low admixture attributed to genetic isolation due to physical barriers)" I am not sure if this sentence should be where it is now or in the beginning of the next section where the "altera pars" is presented, and both points of view should be treated.
  • Sometimes you write nineteenth of eleventh century and some others 19th and 11th. Be consistent.
  • "however, modern scholarly opinion tends to see both Fallmerayer and Paparrigopoulos as taking positions influenced by and intelligible only within the political and intellectual decline of Western philhellenism." I don't understand what exactly you mean here.
  • "Fallmerayer's controversial (some say racist)[87][86] views were later incorporated in Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg's Der Mythus des 20es Jahrhunderts and found adherents in the Third Reich who echoed them in their writings.[88][89][90] They were also actively promoted by the Axis occupation authorities in Greece who hoped to extinguish any sympathy their troops might feel for the Greeks." This may be accurate, but there is also another side; I quote from the Battle of Greece article: " Joseph Goebbels, who was an admirer of Greek antiquity (in his diaries describes how the dream of his youth came true, when he first visited Greece[141]), and believed that Metaxas intended to keep Greece on a neutral course,[142] corroborates in his diaries the fact that Hitler was well disposed towards Greece and its people."
  • Page for citation 84? Do you cite any of these "authors in the West"?
  • In citation 94 you use a primary source. I think a secondary one would be better here. In any case, I think a neutral reader would get the impression that the third paragraph of "Modern and ancient" gets slightly POV.
Demographics
  • "Today Greeks are the majority ethnic group in the Hellenic Republic[1] where they constitute 93% of that country's population" What is the rest 7%? Are we counting residents or citizens?
  • "After the ethnic cleansing[98][99][100] of a third of the Greek population of the island in 1974". I would edit "After the Turkish invasion of Cyprus ... "
  • Doesn't deserve the Greek minority of South Albania a specific reference in "Demographics"? It is absent throughout the article!
Diaspora
  • Citations 105-106 have no pages.
Religion
  • "The main heterodox denominations in the Greek world are Greek Jews, Greek Catholics, Greek Muslims, Greek Evangelicals and other Protestant groups." Hmmmm .... Some numbers or percentages here would help. For instance, it is not logical to specify that "About 2,000 people are members of Hellenic Polytheistic congregations", and to say nothing about the Greek muslims.
Art
  • Citations 122 and 124 are uncited.
  • "Byzantine art is one of the most striking features of that civilization." You refer to which civilization exactly?
Science
  • "The Greeks of the Classical era made several notable contributions to science and helped lay the foundations of modern scientific principles." Such as? Vague IMO as it is now.
  • "The Greek world has a long tradition of valuing and investing in padeia (education)." Well, I am sorry to say that, but the current budgets of the modern Greek state and the relevant funds devoted to education do not exactly support this view. In any case, again this sentence is IMO verbalism.
Symbols
  • "The most widely used symbol used by Greeks is the flag of Greece" Rephrase.
  • Page for citation 131?
Surnames
  • Citations 133 and 135 have no pages.
Sea
  • "In later times the Rhomioi. Do not overwikilink. Once a word is wikilinked, it is ok. Page for citation 137 and 139?
Timeline
  • Provide pages for citations 143, 144 and 145.

End for now! I am sure that with a clearer mind I will have more ideas. I said almost nothing about the structure, but I'll come back! If you are interested now or later we can have more feedback by other editors for the article. You can also check some other FA article of the kind, such as Tamil people to get some ideas.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Could you please explain more clearly what is the problem with Encarta?--Dexippus (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We can easily remove that citation and replace it with the one Yiannis provided. I found this about Encarta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yianni, thank you very much for your suggestions. I will be implementing them presently and they should be up within the next few days. Thanks again.Xenovatis (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A small footnote. The number of Greeks in Albania is taken from the 1989 census, which is both quite dated and of dubious veracity. The CIA World Factbook, gives a number of 3% (so ~120,000). Since it is a better source than the 1989 census, I making that change. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new population according to 2008 census

population should be updated according to 2008 census, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/gr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.186.55 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offspring missing in population count

The population count is inaccurate. It is missing the offspring of native Greeks. It is not listing children of Greek origin with both parents being Greek. This is specially notable in Australia, where was claimed in the olympic games of Athens 2004 that the Greek population together with offspring surpassed 1 000 000 people. --87.219.84.207 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) ?

This video [4] is from a greek journalist TV show. Quite a lot of Greeks from FYROM appear there. Two of them actually claim that 200,000 people of greek national identity reside in FYROM.

Even though 200,000 is a quite large figure , there are certain facts that prove that there are people of greek national identity/greek heritage residing in FYROM :

1)There was never a population exchange between Serbia or later Yugoslavia and Greece.

2)Bitola (Μοναστήρι in Greek) was a city with a thriving greek population at the onset of the balkan wars. In fact, the greek king , who was leading the army , wanted to push towards Bitola to 'liberate it' rather than pushing towards Thessaloniki. Benizelos insisted on pushing towards thessaloniki , and serbia occupied Bitola instead.

3)Many civil war communist partisans from the greek civil war fled to Yugoslavia when the 'official' greek army defeated them.

4)Many vlachs reside in FYROM. Quite a lot of vlachs claim to be greek , and the majority of the greek minority of albania are actually vlachs - which means thats some of the vlachs in FYROM could be considered greek.

5)The Republic of Macedonia does not conduct censuses normally , making its minorities look smaller or even making them non-existant (Can't blame them though , minorities are a sensible matter in the balkans).

6)Even if you consider these facts invalid , at least 2,000 greek buisnessmen have moved to FYROM to take advantage of the low wages paid there.


I think that more 'expert' members should look into the subject.

PS. Since I dont want to take a position on the macedonian naming dispute , i use both Republic of Macedonia and FYROM :P

Powerstream (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)