Talk:Minorities in Greece/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slavic groups

Please rephrase in the lines of Macedonians (ethnic group)#The situation today*Greece as previously agreed in the Talk:Macedonian_language#Dialects_section. I wouldn't want to do it myself, as I am Greek, but I think that this summary is one-sided and excludes the Greek position on the matter entirely. Namely:

• Rainbow Party (<-got it right this time, I think) flunking and
• Self-Inquired hellenization process.

Thank you.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, its ok, go ahead and add the information — if its terribly POV someone can always re-write it, the stuff I added was basically a summary of an HRW report on "Macedonians in Greece". Btw, this article is a work in progress, I've been working on Macedonian language, and acquired a map which I hope will allay some of your concerns. - FrancisTyers 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I insist for two reasons:

• I'm afraid I'll carry it further than necessary
• My English is not as good as yours
• A third person (non-Greek — non-MacSlav) is less likely to be reverted for being biased

Please, Francis, do it.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it, haha, my English sucks too ;) I couldn't get to the references on the page, so I've left out some of the stuff. Any suggestions, comments? - FrancisTyers 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. I think the rest of the editors can now continue from this solid basis. (talking about your English... look above "please do it for two reasons, the following three").  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and good thing you got the lettercase right in the article at least...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:)) - FrancisTyers 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I'm not sure there's a single sentence in this article that is not POV. Prepare for major debunking and you'd better have independent sources to substantiate your claims. The most important thing you have to consider is: Are the minorities you have in mind, ETHNIC minorities? The answer is NO. A little definition for you: An ethnic minority is comprised by indigenous people who do not consider themselves Greek. Not linguistic minorities, not religious minorities, it's ETHNIC we're looking for. Let me tell you, you'll have a hell of a trouble proving that one, because, they simply don't exist,or their numbers are in the very small thousands. --Avg 19:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok let's start:

The existence of a Slavic speaking minority of northern Greece, commonly referred to as Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs is denied by the Greek government. Members of this minority group have been convicted in Greek courts for expression of their views. The Greek government does not permit teaching in the Macedonian language.

The devil is in the details. The existence of a Slavic SPEAKING minority is NOT "denied" by the government. The existence of a Slavic ETHNIC minority is "denied". The very usage of the verb "denied" is POV. Greece doesn't "deny". The way you put it is af Greece is in denial. What happens is that Greece has given many many opportunities for alleged "Macedonians" to count themselves. Where are the hundreds of thousands of "oppressed Macedonians"? After heavy propaganda they managed to get slightly over a thousand votes with this Rainbow party thing. So the Greek govt says, you had your chances and you produced such a small number, that you practically don't exist. I mean there are about 1000 Greeks in Istanbul, will we start FYROMing about our opressed Greek brothers? It's utterly ridiculous. Next sentence: Yes, members of this minority group have indeed been convicted in Greek courts, but you distort the most important thing, why! They were convicted for distributing leaflets that advocated secession from Greece and for openly speaking about "enslaved Macedonia"! Next sentence: This is a totally absurd statement. The Greek government doesn't have any issue about "permitting" or not "permitting" the language. You completely forget there's a naming issue: The people who accuse Greece about it, refer to this language as "Macedonian". Could Greece ever allow a non-Greek language to be taught as "Macedonian"? Let them and their country choose a proper name and there'll be no objection whatsoever. It's just common sense. Moreover, I seriously doubt there's an audience who wants to be taught this language, no matter what a couple of hotheaded propagandists say. --Avg 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's go:

The Greek government discriminates against refugees who fled from the Greek Civil War. Refugees who self-identify as Macedonian are not permitted to regain their citizenship or even visit northern Greece, whereas refugees identifying as Greek have these rights.

You seriously have to show numbers here, because I know we are talking about no more than a few dozens of people here. Yes it's that ridiculous. And even those people "discovered" only after being heavily brainwashed by Skopje that they are "Macedonians". Because at around the Greek Civil War, the "Macedonian" ethnicity did NOT EXIST as an idea. It was just being created by Tito. I find utterly unbelievable that someone could believe he was "Macedonian" back in the fourties. It needed at least a generation for the Titoist propaganda to enter the FYROM minds. Hence it is obvious that whoever claims he fled Greece during the Civil war as a "Macedonian" is LYING.

A Greek court denied permission to set up a "Centre for Macedonian Culture".

Do I need to even comment on that? Please tell me you're just joking and you put that on the page.

Greece opposes the use of the term "Macedonians" to refer to the country's slavophone Macedonian minority, which is centred on the northern Greek town of Florina (Lerin). The term "Slavomacedonians" or "Slavophones" is sometimes used instead, to distinguish them from the greek-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia. The term "Slavomacedonians" is however considered pejorative by some Macedonians.

POV-orama. So the poor "Macedonians" consider pejorative the term Slavomacedonians, but the Greek Macedonians should better start addressing the Slavophones as ...Macedonians and this is not considered neither offensive, nor pejorative, nor anything. Well done Francis.

Honestly, it's a matter of hours before I completely rewrite your article. I will just wait for your answer out of plain curiosity.--Avg 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if true... - FrancisTyers 20:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours (non-Greek, non-Macedonian, 3rd party sources from reputable international organisations). - FrancisTyers 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean HRW? Please you must be joking right? Do you know who wrote these reports? The "famous" Panagiotis ("Panayote") Dimitras! He was behind "Helsinki Watch", "Greek Helsinki Monitor" and so on, with a sole purpose of promoting the FYROM agenda. This guy's a joke for at least 10 years! Just google for him. Here's a link for you. Enjoy! [1]. Are these really your sources? --Avg 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way it's you who bear the burden of proof. How can I produce reports that say "there is no minority oppression"? When there is nothing to be reported, there are no reports. Perhaps the fact that nothing is mentioned in the State Department [2] or CIA [3] reports is a clue. --Avg 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is a well respected organisation, if you have a problem with them I suggest you take it up on their Wikipedia page, or provide arguments countering their view from non-Greek, non-Macedonian, 3rd party sources from reputable international organisations. - FrancisTyers 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I was right! :-)

23:20 <bogdan> OMG, spectie! You don't know that "Human Rights Watch" and the "Helsinki Commission" are part of the big anti-Greek conspiracy.
23:21 <bogdan> spectie: trying to use it against a Greek has null effect. I know this from the UseNet debatings.

bogdan 20:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hellenic Resources Network — interesting name for a non-Greek, non-Macedonian, 3rd party sources from reputable international organisation. Oh wait... - FrancisTyers 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with HRW, I've just told you who I have a problem with. HRW reports were all written by the notorious Dimitras! Just a little hint for you, aren't you a little curious how all the HRW reports came out in one year, between July 1993 and May 1994? What happened before that? There was no Dimitras around. And most important, what happened after that? Well I'll tell you what happened, the reports were DEBUNKED and never surfaced again. have you checked the link I sent you? Here it is again: [4]. The writers might be Greek but they do use extensive references, it's not a propaganda article and I find it as scientific as it gets. The Dimitras' reports were a joke and are very well known and ridiculed all over Greece. Why HRW did not follow up after 1994 if there was an issue? The 1993-1994 era was the proto-nationalistic era of FYROM, when they were claiming preposterous things. Put this reports (and Dimitras) in this context. After 1995, when things calmed down after the settlement of the flag and the constitution issues, this kind of propaganda has diminished. --Avg 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this. As I said... Show me a source from a non-Greek, non-Macedonian, 3rd party reputable international organisations. If it was so widely debunked, where are they? - FrancisTyers 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, don't mix the issues. Claiming one right thing doesn't justify all your claims. I will be the first to object to the treatment of immigrants by the authorities, or to the ridiculous power that the Orthodox Church has. Now these are real issues, not artificial like the pseudoMacedonians. --Avg 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then add that stuff to the Human rights in Greece article, which is pathetically small :( I'd be glad to collaborate with you. - FrancisTyers 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will. But mind you, I know what issues are real and what issues are artificial. I won't just surrender myself to propaganda because of some loosely defined moral values. --Avg 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In speaking of the Vinozito (Rainbow) party this article and the Rainbow article Rainbow (political party) give different dates for when the party participated in the elections. Could someone clarify (in both articles) when did the party actually participate in the elctions (1994? 1999? 2004?) and what results they got each time (in cooperation or not with other parties).-Getas75 (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "Macedonians" being offensive?

What kind of citation is needed for this? Over 2 million people in the streets protesting against the name is not enough?----   Avg    21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?

The article is supposed to be about the ethnic minorities. Some of the groups listed do not fit in the article. --Hectorian 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. You can remove all irrelevant data. It was only Francis putting everything he could think of, relevant or irrelevant.----   Avg    22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor Turks

To accuse Greece for not recognising the Slavs has a debatable basis, but accusing Greece for oppressing the Turks of Thrace is simply absurd. A historical background: In the aftermath of the Greco-Turkish war of 1923, Greece and Turkey agreed to exchange populations. Thus some 1.5 million Asian Greeks were moved to Greece, and some 500K European Turks were moved to Turkey. This treaty had one exception:

• The Greeks of Constantinople, Imbros and Tenedos,
• The Turks of Western Thrace

Now. By 1923, Western Thrace had no more than 30 or 40K Turks. Constantinople, Imbros and Tenedos had some 250,000. Within 80 years (2003), the Greeks of Constantinople reached a mere 2,000 and the Turks of Western Thrace number over 120,000. Despite what the Turks think, this did not happened because the Turkish had the biggest - excuse my French - "willies" in the neighbourhood so that they would "do" anything that moves. No. This happened because during those 80 years the Greeks of Turkey were being constantly harrassed and forcefully deported. Hostilities against us reached their peak in the 50s and 60s where Turkish mobs attacked the Greek districts, smashed to bits and burned down our businesses. Those years over 30,000 Greeks, Turkish nationals or not, were literally kicked out of their houses and had their properties confiscated. They were telling us that if we converted to Islam we'd be allowed to stay, otherwise we'd have to leave the country with a single bag on us. Anyway I don't think there's a need to get into more details, the numbers speak for themselves. The last thing I could bear in wikipedia is to listen that Greece has been oppressing its Turkish minority. As I stated in my edit summary, "Muslim Greeks" is paperwork terminology. Nobody tries to convince anybody that the Muslims of Thrace are not Turks. Towns of Thrace are usually divided into Greek and Turkish part, and there's been no attempt to wipe out the Turkish element as it has happened with the slavs. The Turkish parts of the cities still lie within Ottoman ruines which give the impression of travelling in the past. Last but not least, the use of a national+religious formula (e.g. Muslim Greeks) was intiated by Turkey itself, when it coined the Greeks its "Rum Orthodox" subjects. Miskin 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim minority are not all Turks. They are divided into Turks, Pomaks and Muslim Roma (and under the Treaty of Lausanne, in theory, the same privileges are available to the Pomaks and Roma in their own languages, as for the Turks), however we don't know how many of these people determine themselves as something other than Greeks. Telex 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok the truth is, the first thing you'll notice when you visit the Muslim areas in Thrace is the sheer amount of satellite dishes pointing to Turkish satellites. I believe a lot of them feel Turkish. But I also believe most of them want to remain Greek (perhaps because of the privileges of an EU passport).----   Avg    23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For some idea on the Greek attitude to these issues, see this article. Telex 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that no Greek in that region has ever insisted on calling them "ethnic Greeks of Muslim faith" instead of simply "ethnic Turks" of Greek nationality. Miskin 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I source i've found about the minorities in Greece [5]

I've no idea weather it is a neutral or not, but it says many things about all the things discussed here. Also, it has a breakdown of the muslim community in Western Thrace: Though no updated and objective data exists, according to the most accurate estimations, 49.1 % of the Muslim minority are Turkish (this is a borderline, national minority, as already discussed briefly), 32.5 % Pomaks and 18.3 % Roma (ibid.).(I know it is a pretty long page, so i am giving the numbers myself:)...). --Hectorian 00:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The domination of the concept of the migrant in Greece – rather than that of minority, which is never used about the migrant groups – reflects a resistance of the Greek polity and society to accept that these communities are there to stay (Christopoulos, 2001). The concept of the migrant – especially as it often assumes an illegal or semi-illegal status – reproduces the dominant ideology of Greek cultural homogeneity and of the temporality of the Greek contemporary multi-ethnic condition. This example alone reflects the level of problems that migrant/new ethnic minorities have to deal with. When their survival and everyday life is subject to all different, basic and apparent forms of legal and economic exclusion, it becomes rather difficult to discuss cultural inclusion and participation; even less so to discuss the shaping of a multicultural model of diversity.

LOL!!! :))) Fetch me my beret, and a packet of French cigarettes. STAT! "The concept of the migrant – especially as it often assumes an illegal or semi-illegal status – reproduces the dominant ideology of Greek cultural homogeneity and of the temporality of the Greek contemporary multi-ethnic condition" man that line almost made me wet myself! - FrancisTyers 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, my friend: as i said, i do not even know if that source is realible! Yet, u prefer to mention what u want too-i editted that source as a makeup of the Muslim Community in Western Thrace. according to may own observations, this appears to be the truth (no matter what, this may be my POV, and i am not gonna edit it in the article). if u want to believe that the greek society is as multicultural as the UK, this is your POV, and i would really appreciate it if u did not try to force such edits. afterall, this is your obligation as a Wikipedian, and furthermore as an admin. --Hectorian 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I was laughing at the pretentiousness of the article, not at you. :)) Of course Greece isn't as multicultural as the UK, you haven't had nearly as much immigration. Hope you got the beatnik [6] reference... - FrancisTyers 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, i got it. anyway, i presented it as just a source about the percentances (to be honest, that was all i had read, before i add it here;-)...) --Hectorian 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to [7]

A special commission set up to determine the population of the Greeks of Istanbul and the Turks of Thrace under the 1923 Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations determined the Turkish population of Thrace to be 106,000. The 1928 Greek census put the number of Muslim Turkish speakers at 126,017, a figure that grew to 140,090 in the 1940 census.26 According to the 1951 census, there were 112,665 Turks, though many believe that decrease can be attributed to the fact that many Turks fled Greece, especially Thrace which was under Bulgarian control, during World War II, and did not return at war’s end.27

Today the Turkish minority of Thrace, depending on estimates, numbers between 80-120,000, roughly the same as the number in the 1951 census. Given a 2 percent growth rate—and some estimates have put the growth rate of the Turkish minority as high as 2.8 percent—the Turkish population today would be expected to number 291,472 using the 1951 census data as a base figure or 444,945 using the 1940 census data.

So "By 1923, Western Thrace had no more than 30 or 40K Turks." is a total bs. 193.140.194.103 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

According to [8]number of turks in thrace is around 90000. If you have another reliable source please post it before changing number.Dukak 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote appears to be from a good source; almost identical estimates are made in Clogg's Minorities in Greece. I've found, BTW, quite a lot of info on the Greek Turks while searching on the Pomaks, so I'll probably add some data when I find time to finish the Greek section on the Pomaks.--Aldux 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurominority in itself is not a good source. Certain entries (such as their entry on the Pomaks) are dominated by POV pushing. --Tēlex 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking of the HRW quote given by the anon; these numbers are confirmed by several sources. Regarding the Pomaks, are you sure you're not making confusion with euromosaic? As for HRW. it's a good and respected source.--Aldux 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Eurominority www.eurominority.org. Unconfirmed claims of theirs (e.g. that Pomaks speak "Macedonian", when it is known that they speak dialects of Rhodope) should be used with extreme caution. --Tēlex 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, I've just seen the webpage and what is said is utterly absurd, that idea of Macedonian spoken in Western Thrace is simply crazy. That said, I may mention it if it repeated in other sites among the crazy theories on the Pomaks, like the idea of them being Cumans or Thracians.--Aldux 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavs

About the Slavs. I'm in favour of the use "Slav macedonians" over simple "Macedonians", for the sake of disambiguation. This is a practice followed by Britannica, Word Book and literally every encyclopaedia I'm familiar with (using Mac. slavs instead of Mac. at special occasions). Secondly; After the Balkan war Greece made a small-scale population exchange with Bulgaria, which inevitably left some minorities behind. Then Greece made a treaty with Bulgaria which foresaw the protection of those minorities in each country. Not long after Bulgaria's siding with the Central Powers in the Great War, Greece declared openly that it didn't intend to respect their pact on the Bulgarian minority. Thus all three countries (Yugoslavia included) followed an assimilation policy, and let's not forget that the Millet of Monastiri was until then predominantly Greek. I'm not trying to justify Greek policies, I'm merely trying to point out that as far as Greece is concerned, Macedonia included a Bulgarian minority, which involved a pact and population exchange with the Bulgarian state, nothing more, nothing less. Now Tito woke up one day 20 years later and decided to enforce his land claims on Northern Greece by promoting the "Macedonian nation" formula. Fine by him, fine by the Bulgarians, fine by me. But under what logical arguments does the Helsinki or Reykjavik human rights watch expect Greece to recognise a minority which was not only recently baptised with a different name, but this new name happened to coincide with the wider region's name, exactly as Tito had planned 60 years ago. I've got sources on this, and once I find them I'll edit accordingly. Miskin 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians was (and still is) the common Bulgarian name of the Bulgarians from Macedonia (region). This was their self-designation as well ("I am a Macedonian and I am a Bulgarian") and got internationalized during 1890-1940 as their struggle for liberation entered the world newspapers. Thus Macedonian Slavs somehow corresponds to (one of the meanings of) Macedonians, although today not all of them consider themselves of bulgarian ethnicity anymore. Koliokolio 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavs in northern Greece - the facts:

• Even before the regions annexation by Greece, many Slavs identified as Greek (probably due to religion) and were bilingual in Greek.
• The population has dramatically decreased due to a) population exchanges with Bulgaria (under the Treaty of Neuilly in 1919) and b) expelling by force Slavs to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria (who had supported the Communists during the Civil War).
• Census in 1951 gives 41,000 Slavic speakers.
• Names of Slavophone villages are cited: Ξυνό Νέρο, Κέλη, Αγ. Παντελεήμων and Κόμανος.

The source for what I have written above is with the exception of the brackets is Stefanos N. Sotiriu - Mionotites ke alitrotismos - Elliniki Evroekdotiki 1991. ISBN 9602410191, pages 108, 114. Telex 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not justifying the actions of Greece. I'm just posing the question: Why does the human right watch and any third-party organisation expect from Greece to recognise an ethnic group whose name and very attitude has nothing but blatant land-claims. Realistically, would the US ever recognise a Texan ethnic group in state of Texas for instance? Let alone an ethnic group which officially possessed a different name only 50 years before. All I see is random accusations stemming from childish conclusions. Miskin 23:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of reference the word 'Texas' IS derived from the name of an ethnic group, the 'Tejas',so the US does exactly that. The Tejas prefer to be called the Hasinai these days, though. Indisciplined 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, all HRW reports come from one person: Dimitras. He was the main influence back then at 1995. After 1995, when his role became known and the ultra-nationalist elements at FYROM subsided, HRW did never mention the "Macedonian" minority again.--   Avg    23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is considered "human rights" bad form not to recognise ethnic minorities, look at the Turks with the Kurds. Sure you can say that "Kurdish" is an older ethnicity, but the same arguments you proposed apply there too. Some kind of sense of fear of secession is no excuse. Are there other European countries (wi the exception of France) that don't recognise some ethnic minorities? Telex — I think those are "some" facts, not "the" facts. The Yugoslavs in the 1980s claimed up to 100,000 Macedonian Slavs in Greek Macedonia. Of course their figures will be exaggerated, but I think it should be noted that the Greek government figures will probably be underestimated, especially so soon after the civil war. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Iceland, the Republic of Ireland? Telex 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Slavophones ≠ Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs), Slavophones > Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs), Slavophones (allegedly of course) = Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs) + Bulgarians [9]. Telex 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The quantity of Bulgarian dialect speakers is much lower than of Macedonian dialect speakers, in dialectological terms. - FrancisTyers 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting sources... on talk:Macedonian language, we have hearsay saying the exact opposite. Telex 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I pasted it there before: Trudgill, P. (1992) "Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of minority languages in contemporary Europe" in International Journal of Applied Linguistics + Schmeiger, R. (1998) "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language. pp. 125-135

An interesting consequence of this dispute is that it is not clear how to refer to the South Slavic dialects of northern Greece (which have in any case been mostly repressed or simply ignored by most Greek governments). One does not know whether to refer to the Slavic dialects of Greece as dialects of Bulgarian or dialects of Macedonian, although, of course, the western varieties are more like Standard Macedonian, the eastern varieties more like Standard Bulgarian. (Trudgill 1992)

Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian. (Schmeiger 1998)

- FrancisTyers 01:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not justifying Greece in any way for not recognising a Slavic minority. I'm only pointing out that if Greece were to justify this minority, they would never do it as long as this minority calls itself 'Macedonian'. Greece knew this minority as "Bulgarian", and my opinion is that if it hadn't suddenly stopped being called as such, it would have received its recognition. That's right, all countries recognise minorities, but does any country recognise a minority which has recently changed its name and falsely implies native rights on the host county's largest province? The answer is 'no'. Miskin 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Greece had ample chance to recognize it as a Bulgarian minority for the 80 years it occupied that land and it didnt, choosing politics or pressed assimilation instead. So the name issue does seem to be the most important. If Greece had officially recognized it as Bulgarian in the last 20 years, the name would be no more greek problem but an internal split between those who wanted to be Bulgarian and those who wanted to be "Macedonian" instead, and indirectly a conflict between the two mother-countries. The greeks missed a good chance for divide et impera here. Koliokolio 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Every country that doesn't recognise ethnic minorities gets shit. The Turks get shit (no reference needed), the French get shit [10] and the Greeks get shit. I'm not convinced about Iceland and Ireland -- do you have references? If they don't recognise ethnic minorities then I expect they'd get shit too. - FrancisTyers 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone in Greece, except for the c. 3,000 people in Greek Macedonia who voted for the Rainbow Party, feel "Macedonian"? Does this minority actually feel Macedonian - it has not been proven. There is just one (Skopje sponsored?) organization which has been nagging to HRW. The very existence of a Macedonian identifying minority has not yet been proven. Telex 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Many things haven't been proven. We'd have more chance of knowing if the Greek government allowed it to be recorded on the census. ;) - FrancisTyers 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO they should - this is what FYROM propaganda is depending on. The Macedonian ethnicity was created within the borders of present day FYROM and its only international recognition is by Bulgaria and Albania recognising Macedonian minorities and counting them in their censi. The only reason they did this of course was to safeguard the interests of the thousands of Albanians and Bulgarians in FYROM. FYROM used to claim there were 300,000 Macedonians in Bulgaria; census reveals it is more like 3,000 ;-) This proves most of their claims περί μειονοτήτων are moot (I think 3,000 people in Greek Macedonia voted for Vinozhito - where are the 280,000 they are claiming?). Telex 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be much better if they just accepted it. Really, I don't think they are any longer a threat. Greece is a much bigger country. They should do what they did with KKE after it became no longer a threat. - FrancisTyers 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the right example. The Greek government back then never claimed that there were no communists. They just outlawed them :-) --   Avg    01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic, Linguistic, Religious...

I really find it sick... Who on earth made such an article!!! And what kind of logic is this? Lets try to edit something like that in the 'Ethnic minorities' article of Germany, and start listing: Protestants, Kalvinists, Sorbs, Bavarians, Turks, Poles, Catholics, Romas, etc etc all together... --Hectorian 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was me, after a suggestion from Niko. - FrancisTyers 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an Ethnic minorities in Germany could be a pretty good article. - FrancisTyers 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We have other Ethnic groups in/of X. e.g. Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. There are others too - FrancisTyers 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that it was u. the Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, is not a good example: i do not see there any mentioning about religious minorities... all i see is 'irish catholics', what about all those christian, or not sects(Presveterians, Hinduists, etc) and linguistic groups (Gaelic, Cornish, bla bla bla) that do exist in the UK? i am not asking for an expanding of that article to enclude them as well, but to make this article remain strict to its headline: Ethnic minorities in Greece. --Hectorian 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this article has some merit. I propose a rename to Minority groups in Greece --   Avg    02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection 'bout that. afterall, this is what the articles indeed deals with: all the minorities, no matter ethnic, linguistic or religious differences. there should really be an article about the minorities in Greece, but every attempt to present all of them as ethnic (non-greek) is at least ridiculous, and at worst suspicious... --Hectorian 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection here to changing it to "Minority groups in Greece" in principle, although I will note that being an ethnic minority does not exclude a person from being Greek. A religious minority can be an ethnic minority.

ethnic: Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

So religious and linguistic come under ethnic. - FrancisTyers 08:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you add these (along with anything else you find appropriate) in the article intro? talk to +MATIA 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian has a point, the article's title somewhat implies that Greece is composed by several ethnic groups, one out of which happens to be the Greek (which is far from reality). Miskin 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And really, I don't understand what's this wikipedia obsession to point out that Greece doesn't recognise some 1% of its population as an ethnic minority. As far as I'm concerned the other Balkan countries (who complain in wikipedia today) have all had the same or worse treatment to their minorities. As far as data is concerned, ethnic Greeks have suffered more genocides, ethnic cleansing and discrimination than any of its neighbours during the 19th and especially 20th century, the Greco-Turkish war alone is sufficient to prove this. So why aren't Greeks complain in wikipedia nearly as much as the Slavs and even the Turks (ironically)? The only difference here is that Greece met a relative economical prosperity while the other Balkan counties were absorbed by the communist misery, which gives them a good reason to complain. Eventually, neutral editors who know half of the story, tend to provide romantic support to the "weak", thus we have all of dubious articles and attacks against Greece. It's really ironic, the other day some Turkish editor added to Islam in Greece that the state refused to operate a mosque in the centre of the city (right below the acropolis) the same day that the event took place. I wonder if anybody in wikipedia will ever care to mention the frequent protests of the Grey Wolves in Constantinople who in public view make violent threats against the Ecumenical Patriarch and burn his voodoo-doll on a stake. So far we've got:

• Ethnic groups in Greece
• Islam in Greece
• Greek Muslim minority
• all of which is also summarised in Demographics of Greece
• and the list goes on...

Miskin 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We also have:

• Gay rights in Greece,
• Conscription in Greece, and
• Human rights in Greece

Telex 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, we need one more: Rainbow parties in Greece (sorry) Rainbow Parties in Greece. But I guess the latter is fairly covered at the Gay rights in Greece, considering the overwhelming support it amassed by supporting gay rights (and not by the non-existent Slavic "minority") with 2000 votes in Macedonia! Since it is already covered, I move to erase the section! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper article title

As mentioned above, this is the best title about the content of this article.--   Avg    19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea to rename it, but I got a message telling me otherwise. Perhaps it should be talked out here. talk to +MATIA 12:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

merge and redir?

Shouldn't this article be a part of Demographics of Greece? talk to +MATIA 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. As long as the information herein remains relatively equal.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I agree on this; this article has considerable potentialities of expansion, and in my opinion all European countries should have a similar article. This article shouldn't be lived by Greeks as an attack, but a contribution to show the world what a rich country Greece is.--Aldux 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. The demographics article can be as big as the ‎Apology Against Rufinus ‎(290,131 bytes) if you wish! The titles signify the same thing. Sincerely I don't consider it as an attack, and wouldn't care either way. My comment/vote is purely stylistic/aesthetic/functional, since as I already clarified, I would agree only if the content remains relatively equal. I think it would be silly to have the same info in two articles with different titles. Anyway, do as you please.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the merge proposal posted by Telex, I feel that if we do a merge it's not with Demographics of Greece, but with the article Telex is making at his sandbox, Ethnic identity in Greece, as they seem to cover much the same content.--Aldux 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm making in my sandbox is for Demographics of Greece (a section). This article is a POV fork (the title is POV, as it uses the term minority to refer to groups which the Greek government does not refer to as minorities - the term used is ethnotites (for Jews and Armenians), and diglossoi for everyone else - "minority" meionotita only refers to the Muslims of Thace). --Telex 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We should ask Fran's opinion, as the creator of the article. If he agrees to the merge, it's OK for me to.--Aldux 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The content of this page needs significantly editing anyway. It presents allegations by the notorious Greek Helsinki Monitor as facts, without presenting the other side. --Telex 19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the merge, although the title was my proposal. I have to remind fellow editors that this title was a compromise after the initial title "Ethnic minorities in Greece" by Francis and a move (again by Francis) to "Ethnic groups in Greece". My first priority was to exclude the characterisation "ethnic" and not to include the characterisation "minorities". The problem with the word "minority" is that it implicitly differentiates the group in question with the rest of the population, which is not true for Arvanites, Aromanians etc.--   Avg    19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Aldux I would probably support a merge into Telex's page. I really think we should have some kind of article on Ethnic groups in Greece, similar to other articles on European states. - FrancisTyers 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any article as such at the link you've given. I only see categories.--   Avg    12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor change

I added common history and religion in the reasons for the self-identification of the members of the minorities as Greeks. Maybe i should add 'common origins' as well, but i neither believe this is something that can be verified nor do i want to cause a revert-war. The phrase governmental policy of hellenisation seems kinda strange... Noone can say for sure if it is/was a governmental policy (or also a Church or Great Powers' policy) or a free choice of the people (compare the hellenisation of the East after Alexander the Great's conquests, or the hellinasation of the Phrygians, as an example- they were not government-sponsored or forced attempts-), or even if it was a policy of 're-hellenisation' of the minority population. --Hectorian 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that Greece used to be and still is, irresistible? I'm sure User:Apostolos Margaritis will disagree... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Different voices are always welcomed in democratic societies. the good think is that in such societies irrentistic and fascist voices become isolated... (i hope u got what i mean Nikola:)...). PS:[11] in case someone (administrator or not) will accuse me of making 'hidden' personal attacks. --Hectorian 01:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming problem

I just realized a defect in this article's title. Minority groups in Greece includes religious minorities. The problem with this is the Roman Catholic minority, and other minority religions, which are officially recognized, yet are largely ethnic Greek, and no one has implied otherwise. I think this article should be moved back to Ethnic minorities in Greece - after all, this is standard nomenclature. The article looks silly now saying that the only recognized groups are the Armenians, Muslims and Jews, whereas there are also Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and even Jehovah's Witnesses, which are all officially recognized minority groups, and yet don't quite qualify to be treated in this article, which is mainly about what foreign (mainly human rights') groups refer to as ethnic minorities. --Telex 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem such a big problem; we only have to say that all religious minorities are recognized. We can leave sections on the mormons, the catholics, ecc. After all, nobody said this article is there to be a story of woe or persecutions and whinings. After all, the name is used by Clogg in Minorities in Greece; almost precisely the same title as our's and with many essays from Greek scholars.--Aldux 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Telex 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About greek schools in Istanbul

http://www.geocities.com/omogeneiaen/education-schools.html greek schools in Istanbul

http://www.mitos.com.gr/scamp.asp Phone number of Zographion School if you do not believe feel free to phone them.

   * From TURKEY (Period 15 – 31/7/05)
     Contact Person: Mr. Giannis Demirtzoglou “ Zografeio Lykeio Konstaninoupolis
     Tel: + 90 212 2442789
     Fax: + 90 212 2939517
     E-mail: zograf@superonline.com

http://www.greekembassy.org.au/headline_news.php?act=detail&id=46

about recent conferance that was hold in Istanbul by Zographion School Alumni

Dukak 10:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) By the way this article is about minorities in Greece not the situation of Greeks of Istanbul. Open a new article if you want to write something about it.Dukak 10:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkish section

I think the Turkish section is getting a bit lame now, but what the hell, it's fun! --Tēlex 11:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

More knowledge is betterDukak 12:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW do you know who sponsors the Greek schools in Turkey, the minority itself or the Turkish government? I'd bet the former, but I can't find any references on the topic. --Tēlex 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok your source about minotory schools is greek i can't read it :/. As for Greeks in Istanbul , for my personal knowledge primary greek schools are state sponsored and there is 1 state sponsored high school and 2 private schools(minotory pays). I don't have any English sources.Dukak 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Btw don't get it wrong I know schools for minority in West thrace is state-sponsored i only wondered if any documents in English about it. Dukak 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a minute - I'll see what I can find. --Tēlex 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on Telex, it's well known that Turkey is not at the first places for the respect of the HR, but why do we have to speak so much of Turkey? This section should speak of Greece and its minority, not the other way.--Aldux 12:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To Dukak: here - to Aldux: I know. We should start an article for comparing and contrasting (where I can go into the Istanbul Pogrom in detail). We could call it Strengths and weaknesses of the Greek and Turkish governments when it comes to ethnic minorities. --Tēlex 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, that would be a great mudslinging contest ;-)--Aldux 12:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You certainly mean: Strengths and weaknesses of the Greek and Turkish governments when it comes to ethnic minorities. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aldus this section should speak about Greece only. This section needs some cleanup. Comparative stataments does not fit into encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. And I think there is no article about Greek minority of Turkey maybe some info can be splited to there.--Dukak 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article called Greeks in Turkey better use this one--Dukak 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Any respected source about Dodecanese island turks is more than welcome--DuKaK (☠Talk) 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greier

What do you want? The Aromanians section is more sourced than it has ever been. You are welcome to add info (providing it is sourced), but do not remove sourced info. --Tēlex 21:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Labels

This article (whole article) is POV, disputed, and need to be verified by non ultranationalist greeks greier 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Happy now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Greier, who do you think you're fooling [12]. Self-determination does not apply to the Aromanians, as none of them are seperatists, and words such as "basic minority" rights are used only by amateurs and propagandists such as yourself. Don't fabricate sources. --Tēlex 10:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the same article by Kahl is quoted on Aromanians as saying:

"There are still pro-Romanian Aromanians in Greece, especially in villages in which strong Romanian communities were once accepted by the Greek authorities, above all in Avdhela, Perivoli, Samarina, Vovusa, Krania, Edessa, Veria and surrounding areas, as well in a few villages in the district of Kastoria and Ioannina. On a whole, they are a minute and dwindling number of Aromanians.." - By the way, I'd be grateful if folks who quote scholarly journals gave correct bibliographical details. It's Dede Kahl, "The Ethnicity of Aromanians after 1990: the Identity of a Minority that Behaves like a Majority", in Ethnologia Balkanica 6 (2002): 145-169. A similar article by the same author is online here: [13].

Good, Greier can use that or whatever else he wants. Just note that in that release by the Panhellenic Federation... they also say that there is no such thing as a Vlach ethnicity or Vlach language (only unstandardized dialects). --Tēlex 10:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, the Kahl article doesn't support what Greier was claiming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a record for posterity: Greier wanted to introduce the following text: "many Aromanians still have a non-Greek identity, and argue for the the basic minority rights to be respected, such as education and church service in maternal language." [14], ostensibly quoting title and page of an article by Kahl. However, Kahl himself said [15]: "the national identity of most Aromanians takes place without a doubt through modern Hellenism. [...] Claims that "the Vlach community wants to have education and church services in Vlach" and "Greece refuses to give the Vlachs any cultural rights", do not necessarily represent cultural demands made by the Aromanians of Greece" - However, Kahl then does go on with some rather interesting differentiations. But in any case, in view of this example of blatant academic dishonesty, I think we should require from Greier in future that he back up his edits not just with a reference, but always with a literal quote from his sources on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Racists

It's interesting to read all the anti-macedonian and pro-greek racist comments on wikipedia, inclduing the articles. You can talk all you want about how we "don't exist" or were created by Tito but the simple fact remains that people have called themselves Macedonian before Tito and before our greatest hero Alexander the Great. Honestly though if any of you are actually concerned with scholarly history and not this politically charged racist bullshit please go out and read a book. Why not try reading something by Eugene Borza, Ernst Badian, Peter Green, or how about just abouy any historian from antiquity and they will all mention the Macedonians as a distincit nation, a distinct ethnicity. Their works on Macedonia happen to be highly regarded (especially Eugene Borza) and their works are not scoffed at by contemporary historians.

Anyone who argues against the validity of the Macedonian nation I have a suggestion for you. Read all the books that you can get your hands on, read the pro-greek ones, the pro-macedonian ones, and the unbiased ones. You will see for yourselves the ones that make the most sense and the ones that fit history perfectly are the ones that acknowledge the Macedonian ethnicity. The other ones are filled with propaganda and historical nit-picking.

So please instead of posting back and trying to argue with me, go read those books instead. Until you have compiled enough research to engage in an intelligent historical debate just don't bother posting. Believe me I will know if you have done research that counts. Typing in the google bar doesn't count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stefanthemacedonian (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 September 2006.

We've been reading them since antiquity... Why don't u just re-read them? oh, perhaps cause u will change your mind. Hectorian 06:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "turkish minority"

The term "turkish miniroty" is not used internationally by any country(incuding Turkey), therefore i find it inapropriate to be used here. --GrWikiMan 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on man, you know there are Turks in Greece, and even the Greek government admits there are Turks in Greece (how else can they say that 50% of Muslims in Thrace are ethnic Turks). See it this way: Human Rights Watch uses the term Turkish minority [16], happy? --Tzekai 11:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tzekai is right, and besides, a simple Google test will also show that the phrase is in use. Different sources use different words, and the CIA World Factbook is normally very sensitive. They just present statistics and not labels, and instead let the readers draw their own conclusions and make their own descriptive monikers. If we are discussing whether or not a term should be used, the CIA factbooks is therefore not an appropriate reference, where HRW and similar interpretive sources are. - Mauco 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Look I wont argue with you because i dont have anything personal with turks and/or muslims(as i am not a nationalist), i just dont find accurate the quoted term thats all nothing else. I am not an expert on this field so I am not willing to discuss this any further. --GrWikiMan 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See it this way, it's agreed by everyone (except Turkey and the Turks) that the Muslim minority of Greece encompasses three different ethnicities: Turks, Pomaks and Roma/Gypsies. All those groups are dealt with seperately in this article: Minorities in Greece#Turkish (Turks), Minorities in Greece#Muslim Slavophones (Pomaks) and Minorities in Greece#Roma (Roma/Gypsies). No one said that Muslim minority of Greece = Turks. The article says Muslim minority of Greece > Turks (within Greece that is). --Tzekai 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the term to "Muslin minority". The arcticle must be written according to the international standards. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

%50 of the "muslim minority" is Turkish. Even greek goverment census gives it that way. http://www.hri.org/MFA/foreign/musmingr.htm http://www.malkidis.info/gr/?p=66 Dukak (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't imply that we have a "minority" in Greece. According to article about Minority: In the politics of some countries, a minority is an ethnic group that is recognized as such by respective laws of its country and therefore has some rights that other groups lack.

In Greece what is recognized is a Muslim minority consisted by 3 ethnic groups. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I used one your links to provide more detailed information. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to be about the groups that exist in Greece in fact, not about what the Greek government does or does not recognize (if it were, then the Arvanites and Vlachs etc would not be mentioned). Furthermore, if it is merely a Muslim (religious) minority, what is it doing in the "ethnic minorities" section? If you had read the section, you would be aware that it and its sources discuss Turks (which are distinguished from the wider Muslim minority), not Pomaks or anything else discussed elsewhere. That section in its current state makes no sense and serves as little more than a tribute to the vast abyss which separates nationalist narratives and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolavon (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with VoA Bot II

Apparently due to a bug (possibly related to non-ascii characters in usernames, but that's just my guess), the anti-vandalism bot VoA Bot II has currently taken a dislike to Kékrōps (talk · contribs) and won't let him edit on this article. Until this is fixed, can people please just extend the courtesy to Kekrops and revert back to his version whenever the bot interferes? The bot will leave other users alone. 3RR is obviously not an issue. I don't want to block the bot as it is probably doing a useful job elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will take care of this for the time being.Hectorian 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

95%?

Just for the record, I place here a contribution that was immediately deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise and that nobody has restored:

Speaking to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece on 10 October 2006, Archbishop Christodoulos stated: "Today more than 500,000 Moslems live in our country" (Εκκλησία, Official Gazette of the Church of Greece, October 2006, page 737). If Moslems are therefore about 5% of the population of Greece, and since there are also people of other religions or no religion in the country, the Orthodox cannot be 95% of the population.

The original text of what Archbishop Christodoulos said is: "[Οἱ πιστοὶ τοῦ Ἰσλάμ, συγκεντρωμένοι μέχρι πρὸ 20ετίας στὴ Δυτικὴ Θράκῃ, ἄφηναν ὅλους ἐμᾶς τοὺς ἄλλους ἀδιαφόρους ἐμπρὸς στὴν ὕπαρξή των. Σήμερα ζοῦν στὴ χώρα μας πάνω ἀπὸ 500.000 μουσουλμάνοι, οἱ περισσότεροι τῶν ὁποίων εἶναι συνκεντρωμένοι στὴν Ἀττική.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)" Lima 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The 95% of the Greek citizens and legal residents of the country are Christian Orthodox. The Archbishop made a total estimation of the Muslims in Greece, combining the Muslim minority in Thrace, the legal immigrants of Muslim faith, as well as the 10s of thousands of illegal immigrants. The number 95% for the Orthodox is the number referred to the Greek population, those who are citizens of Greece in Greece and those who reside in Greece legally and are counted in the census. Thus, u cannot say estimated 500,000 Muslims out of 11,000,000 of the census equals about 5%. If u have credible estimations about all the legal or illegal immigrants, or for the Europeans who come here and stay some weeks or months or years without mentioning their arrival to the authorities (since we are in the EU) and about their faith, do provide them, and u will have to estimate the percentage of the Muslims according to that number. In case u do not know, most illegal immigrants in Greece are not Muslims, but people from the former Eastern Block. so, in reality, even if u provide sources for the total population (which would be very interesting, and I really wanna know), the percentage of the Muslims would be much much lower. Regards Hectorian 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want sources for the number of adherents of Orthodoxy, I suggest the following. About 97 percent of Greece’s population is at least nominally Greek Orthodox [17] and Greek Orthodox 98% [18]. These are certainly more reliable than some hearsay from Christodoulos; he says a lot of things that cannot be taken seriously.

U are right! But, as we know, it is not rare in wikipedia users trying to rise the percentages and numbers of an ethnic, religious or linguistic group, based on hearsays and unofficial quotes, and then comparing it to the total official population number... Hectorian 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This BBC news article [19] is interesting too. It says things like ...a country whose population is 96% Greek Orthodox... and ...[Athens]'s 200,000 or so Muslims have been.... 200,000 is about 1,8% of Greece's population.

Not that I care too much about this topic, but just for the record, the article France claims that "4% of the population identifies itself as muslim", and nobody complains about it [I'm not even going to compare the frequencies of running into muslims in the two countries]. Here we are using raw figures without even knowing how many of those people actually admit to being muslim, and yet there's still complaints. This is happening in some 90% of Greece-related articles and it is getting monotonous. Miskin 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to return to this page and discuss this matter any further. For me it is enough to have left here the quotation for the record. But I will just say this: Whatever others may understand by population, I understand it to mean inhabitants, not citizens. In my poor experience, a census counts those who are present on a particular night, citizens or not, and without asking if some citizens who are normally resident happen to missing at just that particular moment. In countries where the census form asks about religion - it Greece it does not - the census results indicate the proportions of those in the country that night who belonged to one religion or another. I certainly have been counted in the census of countries where I was not a citizen, increasing by one also the number of people indicated as having the same religion I belong to. Archbishop Christodoulos, who I suppose had no reason to exaggerate the number of non-Orthodox in Greece, said there are over half a million Moslems in the country. The July 2006 estimate of the Greek population - population, not citizenry - was 10,688,058 (CIA Factbook). I cannot help but draw the conclusion that Moslems constitute about 5% of the population of Greece. Others may draw what conclusions they will. Lima 19:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all Christodoulos is not a source. If for no good reason, because he makes the false assumption that all Albanians are muslim. Secondly, even if Christodoulos is taken as a source, the 95% estimation is valid. Will you be happier if we said "over 5% is muslim due to an estimation of illegal immigrants (who are by default muslim)"? I can't figure out how someone can be that concerned by such a matter. How come none of that huge percentage of muslims doesn't complain and you do? Miskin 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should question how come Saudi Arabia appears to be 100% Muslim and we do not say that 4% are Catholics (+more %s other Christians), when we know for sure that there are 1 million Catholic Phillipinos. LOL Hectorian 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh no, we might insult their faith! Miskin 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously now, 4% of the population of Saudia Arabia are Christians [20]. User:LieutenantBoom

LOL:). I was not kidding... But who "dares" to reduce the percentage of Muslims in Saudi Arabia to less than 100% in wikipedia? Hectorian 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews of Greece

The given total population of Thessaloniki (360,000) in the year 2000 is definitely wrong (it was 700,000 back in 81). [unsigned]

Albanian origin population group ignored

Although helenisation factor there is a significant number of Albanian( Arvanites) population in Greece more then 3 million realistic number" army and education were the most effective mechanisms of Hellenization, assisted by the judiciary system ready to denounce and punish all forms of behavior inconsistent with the state’s nationalist culture (Kitromilidis, 1990:38; Kollias, 1994)." Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Arvanites are Greeks.They take Albanian tag as an insult.The fact is that they are totally and willingly assimilated to Greek culture is obvious as they communicate, marry with other Greeks generally don't consider themselves something different from us at all and we don;t consider them sth different also. So speaking about 3 million is just ridiculous and science fiction.

Frankly it does not really matter what these Arvanites think of themselves today. As the person above mentioned, and cited, a policy of Hellenization may have contributed to them thinking they are Greeks and you thinking they are the same as you. Relying on your emotional views is not really scholastic.--PG-Rated (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stub assessment for WP:GR?

Title says all. NikoSilver 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

External link

I would like to ask kindly Mr. Kapnisma ?, not to exclude constantly the link Sur la question de la minorité nationale macédonienne en Grèce written by Lazo Moïsov from the article Minorities in Greece. The article is written with arguments and facts. And in the end, Mr. Moisov is a member of this minority. He was born in the Kastorian village of Dendrochori, and was expelled from his home village in 1949. Secondly the site where this article is published is also civilized, and is not “nationalistic” as Kapnisma ? says. An example is and introduction from the cite[21]: “The position of this site’s editors is that the ethnic Macedonians and Greeks can and will be friendly nations when they start respecting each other for what they are. The editors believe that the unity of the two people which was present during the Greek Civil War will be repeated one day, while fighting for a new common ideal.”. So, you see. The article is all right, and shows the other point of view. Every other exclusion of the link will be Vandalisation. Revizionist 09:12, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't lecture us about how to behave, specially you people, since most of you in your talk pages express irredistic claims. Here it is an English site, few can understand what this article says it;s in your language, and judging from this and from the quality of most of these sites we can very well understand what is the content.

And try to read WP:RS before accusing others.

Kapnisma ? 08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with that "You people". You can not judge a whole people beacuse of the begavior of several members of that people. This goes both to ethnic Macedonains and Greeks. The article is in French, and is written by a member of the minority. The cite is an internet library. Here is the article. Please read it (your user profile indicates that you understand Frech): Sur la question de la minorité nationale macédonienne en Grèce. Best regards. Revizionist 11:19, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

That you people was adressed not to you, but to the anonymous user who placed the link. The article IS NOT in French, try to open some links. The only links in other language are some pseudohistory claims by someone Thammy Evans who speaks of Aleksandar Macedon (sic) , Tsar Samoil of Macedonia (again sic). I specially liked the part where he/she says: I bet if we could conjure up old Alex and ask him his nationality, he would answer that he was Macedonian, not Greek.

Now seriously, the reproduction of varius ludicrous claims , historical and genetic pseudoscientific fringe theories (see Arnaiz-Villena controversy among others, and Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism (Extreme and moderate)) to support claims like that Macedon had differrent civilization from South Greece so contemporary Greeks do not have any right on their Macedonian heritage, that some Slavs absorbed Ancient Macedonians to produce modern Slavomacedonians, that Tsar Samuil was Macedonian Slav and not Bulgarian, that Greeks practiced genocide to Slavomacedonians, etc by sites similar to this one, is aiming to equate irrelevant things like: Macedonia (country) = Macedonia (region) = Macedon = Bulgarian Empire (called "Macedonian Empire" by them), and like ethnic Macedonians = Macedonians (regioners) = Ancient Macedonians. That thing is not something that wikipedia promotes and most of the editors are not going to take you seriously if you continue to insist in these sources.

I would strongly advice you to read WP:RS Kapnisma ? 09:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What thing applies specially in historyofmacedonia.org and similar sites and I mention it because you have provided this site as an external link to an other article. Can you imagine what will happen if everyone starts placing nationalistic sites as sources and evidences? Kapnisma ? 10:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kapnisma, filo mou. I', not talking about ancient Macedonians, we are talking about modern Greece - which is a multi-linguistic and multi-ethnical country like every other country in the Balkans. And now about the article: [22] – open it in MOZILA and click on the scanned pages. It is in French and is a scientific, historical and anthropological article. There is nothing nationalistic about it. Revizionist 12:07, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

I use internet explorer 7 and there is nothing in my browser, but still that does not change what I have told you above, φίλε μου. As for the which is a multi-linguistic and multi-ethnical country like every other country in the Balkans don't judge from your country. We are not so multi-ethnical as you have learned to believe. Furthermore, you have placed a link in your language about the supposed Slavomacedonian minority in Greece, where the only thing in English are the above pseudohistory claims, a user who doesn't know French, or doesn't have Mozilla, what do you thing is going to read? And what do you want me to assume? So, please, φίλε μου, spear me the I'm, not talking about ancient Macedonians Kapnisma ? 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I can see, Evans is a British autor, so we can say that she is neutral. But ok, let's live that aside. We are not talking about ancient Macedonia, but for contemporary Greece. Every country in the Balkans is multyethnic (the difference is in the degree). In Greece there are Pomaks, Vlachs, ethnic Macedonains, Albanians, Bulgarians, Roma, Turks and others. And now for the article. OK, here you are:

Sur la question de la minorité nationale macédonienne en Grèce

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

C'il vous plait lessez le livre at dites moi que-ce-que vous pensez. D'accord? Salut. Revizionist 13:19, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

I will read them, don't worry but I can tell from now that it reproduces what I have said above. You want to pose as neutral someone who is already biased. And as for this Evans being neutral because he is British... come on, man, just read what he writes! Kapnisma ? 11:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kala..Entaksi Kapnisma. As you see I have always been reasonable. I will wait untill you throw an eye on the text, and I won't change imput the link Sur la question de la minorité nationale macédonienne en Grèce in the article untill you tell your arguement. OK, regards till now. See you soon. Revizionist 13:49, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated before I do not think that the personal opinion of someone in a site somewhere in internet is compatible to WP:RS, specially when they reproduce the claims I have mentioned above. Furthermore, I fail to understand the usefulness of a source in french here, in english wikipedia. As anyone can see from visiting this particular site, apart from the french section, which by the way is inaccessable to those who use Internet Explorer, all the rest is written in Slavomacedonian, except, of course, the english section that repeats well known pseudohistory claims. Kapnisma ? 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)