Talk:Minorities in Greece/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content of current AfD candidate Slavomacedonian

The term Slavomacedonian (Greek: Σλαβομακεδόνας, σλαβομακεδονικός) is a term used to refer to members of the ethnic Macedonian community. The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports that it was introduced and initially accepted by the community itself in order to overcome the confusion caused by the different and often conflicting uses of the name Macedonian. According to members of the community, however, its subsequent misuse by the Greek authorities in a "pejorative, discriminatory way" has led, to the "reluctance if not hostility of modern-day Macedonians of Greece (i.e. people with a Macedonian national identity) to accept it".{{ref|ghm}}

The term was used by the EBLUL to refer to both the Slavic speaking minority in northern Greece, and the population in the Republic of Macedonia. The term was dropped after complaints from ethnic Macedonian organisations. {{ref|eblul}}

1. {{note|ghm}} Greek Helsinki Monitor - The Macedonians

1. {{note|eblul}} Greek Helsinki Monitor - Press Release - 2002

If that article gets deleted, the info should be added to this page. BalkanFever 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It already exists at Macedonia (terminology). ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

temporary?

In the 6th and 7th centuries AD, Slavic-speaking populations temporarily overturned Macedonia's Greek ethnic composition, and Slavic languages have been spoken in the area alongside Greek in the region ever since.

A not concluded period of 1500 years cannot be classified as temporary[1]

Alex Makedon (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that my contribution was reverted by User:Tasoskessaris with the comment: Temporarily refers to the 6th and 7th centuries only. That's two hundred years not 1500. After the 7th century the population became predominantly Greek again and stayed predominant ever since

Now the Britannica link attached [2]from wich a part of the aticle is copy/pased does not use the term temporary. Instead it states that after the 6-7th century Slavic invasion most of the region subsequently fell under the sway of the first Bulgarian empire in the 9th century meaning that the region continued to be mainly inhabited with Slavs. Saint Cyril and Methodius born in Thessaloniki, Macedonia in the 9th century created the Cyrillic alphabet for the Slavofonic population living in the region. During the Middle ages this region was ruled by Bulgarian and Serbian empires. By the same Britannica Article the ensuing treaty in 1913 of the Balcan Wars assigned the southern half or “Aegean Macedonia” to Greece. Grece or the Hellenic population are not mentioned before 1913 so the Slavic population has lived in the Macedonia region ever since the 6th century, not as you are claiming just from the 6th till the 7th century. According to the same source the Slavofinic Macedonian language is spoken in Agean Macedonia ever since 6th century. Its clear that the Slavofonic population that inhabited the Macedonia region have 1500 years of continous history, language and culture. Alex Makedon (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine now. After I saw the Britannica article I realised it was referring to the historical region of Greater Macedonia, not the geographical Macedonia part of Modern Greece. Thanks for taking the time to clarify it on the talk page. Dr.K. (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To be precise the Britannica article reffers to the history and the inhabitants of the Macedonia (region) which covers parts of five Balkan Modern countries: Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria and minor parts of Albania and Serbia. Infact in the chapter discussing the Balcan Wars it is stated The ensuing treaty in 1913 assigned the southern half, or “Aegean Macedonia,” to Greece and most of the northern half (“Vardar Macedonia”) to Serbia; a much smaller portion, “Pirin Macedonia,” went to Bulgaria. Alex Makedon (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure by "Greater Macedonia" he meant Macedonia (region). BalkanFever 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. Dr.K. (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the geographical area Macedonia of Modern Greece is a part of the Macedonia region i found the above statement by Dr.K. ambiguous, so i needed to precise. Alex Makedon (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is, especiallly since it reflects Britannica. Dr.K. (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Its strange why the word overturned sounds not appropriate all of a sudden, considering that it was on the article ever since 16 June 2006 [3] furthermore it is used in the Britannica Article, and i dont think they would use an inappropriate term. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of languages

Polibiush wants this image in, AerospaceM and some IP from Athens want it removed? It was created by a Greek user based on an ethnologue map. What do others think about it? BalkanFever 03:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously woefully inaccurate. It has Arvanitika spoken in Kalamata rather than Thebes, for example, and Turkish in Kavala rather than Komotini or Xanthi where the Muslim minority actually resides. It also seems to have confused Arvanitika with Tsakonian in the case of the southeastern Peloponnese, and if that yellow bit on the Bulgarian border is supposed to be Pomak, it should be well to the east in Thrace, not eastern Macedonia. I wasn't aware that Athens lay so far away from a Greek-speaking area or that Thessaloniki was a borderline Slavophone city, either. It's all over the shop, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source image as well? BalkanFever 07:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is Ethnologue's problem, and needn't be ours as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone get a more accurate map then? We clearly need something in a similar format, showing the regions where the various groups are located. Needless to say, a caption should make clear that these are traditional language areas, not present-day majorities. It of course doesn't imply that no Greek is spoken there (in that sense, Kekrop's objection against Athens/Arvanitika is unfounded. Yes, Athens ought to be shown as a small enclave in an overall solidly Arvanitika spot). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the original source did state "Greek is spoken in all of Greece" or something to that effect. I tried to look for another map but with no luck yet. BalkanFever 09:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case it should be captioned accordingly, not left open to interpretation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually trying to improve the caption just the other day, in one of the pages where this map was used (forget which). No doubt that was not yet the optimal solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This one, strangely, had none at all. Don't know how that slipped past me. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This image is accurate and comes from a very reliable source. If someone makes a new more "accurate" map, what would it be based on? Your POVs? At least this map is based from a real map from Ethnologue. Why not mention ethnologue in the caption of the image so everyone knows where exactly it came from? Polibiush (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Athens and Thessaloniki is Greek speaking, this map just outlines that apart from Greek speakers there are also minority languages present that area, Athens always had a presence of Arvantika being spoken, and the villages around Thessaloniki are both Greekspeaking and Slavophone. There is nothing wrong with this map. Polibiush (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The original map from the Ethnologue website, amd the map made on wikipedia, differ slightly when it comes to the location of the languages spoken. If some could make a more accurate map, that is very carefully based from the original map on Ethnologue, that would be appreciated. Polibiush (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just remind me please, could you give us a link to the original map on Ethnologue? – By the way, since somebody questioned the use of Ethnologue as a source in general: Yes, Ethnologue does count as a generally reliable scholarly publication. It's a tertiary source, of course, being based on compilation of all sorts of other academic literature. Of course there are mistakes in it from time to time, and if we can get at the research literature directly that'll be better, but on the whole there's no doubt it's a decent publication, and of course ethnographic maps of that type exist and the basic facts shown in the map can be hardly in doubt (i.e. Arvanitika around Attika, Turkish in the northeast, Slavic in the north, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And in addition, if it should be the case that the map on Ethnologue contains trivial errors, such as locating this or that population spot a few kilometers too far to the right or left, as Kekrops seemed to imply above, I'm sure we wouldn't be stretching WP:NOR if we just silently corrected it in our version, based on what we know. What would such mistakes be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link [4] Polibiush (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did something for now. Linguists may be interested in blue-ing that red link. NikoSilver 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, something along those lines is fine. But I don't think "frequency", in the sense you have in mind, exists as a technical term in linguistics that would warrant an article. When I hear of "frequency" in linguistics, I think more of stuff like this or this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NikoSilver :) Polibiush (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right Fut.Perf., I don't think moving locations of the languages a few kilometres to the right or left is worth doing, especially in our case with a map of such low resolution. This is not a big deal Polibiush (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So has this been resolved, or what? _{El Greco}^(talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. The map needs to be scrapped and redrawn from scratch, preferably according to more reliable sources. I've already pointed out the most glaring errors that need to be fixed. Kalamata, a major population centre, and Athens itself, as opposed to the surrounding Attica region, are not traditional Arvanitika-speaking areas, and Pomak and Turkish are spoken in Thrace, not eastern Macedonia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

These are very small errors, almost unnoticable with such a small map with low resolution. The original ethnologue map (the link is provided in the caption) do not have the mistakes you pointed out. Also in the caption, it is clarified that these are "approximate areas", meaning the areas shown in the map could be off by a couple of kilometers. The map is alright, no major problem here. Polibiush (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is a bad, and probably wouldn't hold up to Wikipedia scrutiny. It's got to be done right or its no good. Approximation is not encyclopedic. And aren't there other sources out there besides this one site? _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case we have to be approximate, since Greece does not conduct censuses that ask for mother tongue. This map was based on field studies conducted by ethnologue. The claims made by ·ΚέκρωΨ· are being made into a big deal when they're not (let me remind you that there are no city borders or municipal lines in the map so of course it will be a little vague.) Also, i'm very sure that Turkish and Pomak is spoken inboth Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, after all they're right beside eachother Polibiush (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not actually. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the matter with you? Since when do you know everything?

According to Roland Schmieger,

“ Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and in the Rhodope Mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem. ”

Polibiush (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I plan to redraw that map, hopefully during this weekend. I'll do it on the basis of the Ethnologue map, which is a good enough source in the absence of anything better right now. If anybody knows of particular factual errors in that one, please point them out now. I'm willing to go out on a limb of OR and make appropriate minor corrections, if objections to any particular detail in the map can be substantiated. I take it there cannot be any serious objections against having some map along those lines, and against the rough outlines of its content (like: Arvantika around Attica, Vlach in Pindus, Slavic in Macedonia, Turkish in Thrace etc.). Those, as far as I can see, are entirely uncontroversial and match what we are saying in the article anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Map redrawn

New linguistic minorities map

Okay guys, I've redrawn that map. It's now closer to the original at Ethnologue. Comments welcome; it can still be modified fairly easily. commons:Image talk:Greece linguistic minorities.svg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavic" is inaccurate. From this article: "The actual linguistic classification of these dialects is unclear, although most linguists will classify them as either Bulgarian or Macedonian Slavic taking into account numerous factors, including the resemblance and mutual intelligibility of each dialect to the standard languages (abstand), and the self-identification of the speakers themselves. As however the vast majority of these people don't have a Bulgarian or Macedonian Slav national identity, linguists will make their decisions based on abstand alone.". I think we should change this to Slavic language, which includes both Macedonian Slavic, and Bulgarian. NikoSilver 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From the linguistic studies quoted literally in our Slavic language (Greece) article:

• It seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks as Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. (Trudgill)
• Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and in the Rhodope Mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem. (Schmieger)

Those parts of the "Slavic" area that are actually shown in the map are all safely on the "Macedonian" side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, needless to say, I deliberately chose "Macedonian Slavic" rather than just "Macedonian" in order to please you guys. I mean, come on, "Macedonian Slavic" clearly refers to whatever Slavic varieties are spoken in Macedonia. All is well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with NikoSilver. If the Ethnologue's map and article is anything to go by then "Slavic" it is. Why use an alternative name for this one and not for others e.g. for "Turkish" - Osmali, for "Albanian" (NW) - Arvanitika and so on. Also, if again we go by Ethnologue's map, where is "Pontic Greek", which largely covers the "Macedonian Slavic" area? All coloured areas must be stripped or dotted as so to blend in with the substrate colour, which should be labelled as the Greek language. The vast majority are using the Greek language. --LittleTinMan (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Ethnologue agrees with everybody else in the literature that "Slavic" in Greece is indeed Macedonian [5].
2. The Turkish language in Greece is called Turkish, wherever I've seen it in writing. Who on earth would be calling it Osmanli?
3. "Arvanitika" (in the south) is duly distinguished from Albanian proper (in the north), again following Ethnologue and other relevant literature.
4. The presence of Greek is taken for granted, the image description doesn't imply anything to the contrary, and neither should the captions that will be used with it in the article.
5. I opted to only include the non-Greek languages. I doubt all Greek readers would be happy to see "Pontian" and "Tsakonian" described as "minority languages".

By the way, what kind of a new user would you be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Ethnologue clearly labels the language as "Slavic" in your reference and , again clearly, uses "Slavic" in it's map. [6]
2. Ethnologue labels "Macedonian Slavic" as an alternative name in its list about "Languages of Greece" [7]. Thus, by using an alternative name for "Slavic" we can easily use other alternative names as Osmali, Hellenoromani, Arvanitika (NW), Meglenitic, Romika and so on.
3. Again, the Greek language should be clearly labelled (since Ethnologue's map seems to be the reference here) and blend in with all coloured areas, as so to reflect linguistic reality. Most, if not all minority languages speakers are using the Greek language.
4. I do not have a problem with that. I do not "mind" minority languages either if by any chance you imply that. (Not that it would make any difference but I've spent considerable, of my free, time to study the linguistic situation in Greece and the Balkans in general.
5. See # 3

That kind; as you once did, if I'm not mistaken. (FYI, I'm not a meat-puppet nor an (abusive) sock-puppet of any Greek ( and/or Greek-speaking) editor, concerned with this kind of articles, that you usually interact with.) --LittleTinMan (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for us to stick slavishly with that particular source, to the extent that we'd have to follow all their terminological decisions. We are perfectly free to choose whatever fits our naming policies, i.e. the name that is most common in the literature in each case (unless the terminology in the source was intended to carry a specific, divergent factual claim. Which it does not.) – As for the "blending in", feel free to try your luck if you have the graphic skills. How exactly do you want to show that a pastel colour lets another shine through, when that other colour is an almost white, yellowish pastel brown? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

... And Slavic fits our naming policies just fine (plus, according to some sources, it is the preferred self-identifying autonym in those areas), as is Arvanitika (NW), Meglenic and so on (fitting our policies, that is). I can not claim that I'm a keen graphic designer but I can try; it's going to take at least 2 or 3 days though. --LittleTinMan (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I insist that this map use linguistic terminology as commonly used in the international English-speaking literature. "Meglenic" is not a term used in English. "Arvanitika" is not commonly used as a linguistic term in English with reference to the northern varieties (as opposed to the southern ones, where it is used with some regularity.) If you don't want "Macedonian Slavic", the only alternative is "Macedonian". In that case, we can also change "Arvanitika" to "Albanian", "Pomak" to "Bulgarian" and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear; Have you or have you not used the Ethnologue's map as a reference for your design?

As I’ve said above, if we go by Ethnologue's map (i.e. reflecting here those linguistic areas) Slavic is a perfectly fine linguistic term. It also uses Bulgarian, Arvanitika Albanian (not just Albanian), Tosk Albanian (Arvanitika NW), Pontic and so on. I 'll say it again; I do not have a problem with any of these terms, including "Macedonian Slavic." Clearly though, "Macedonian" is not the only alternative. --LittleTinMan (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And the idea with the graphic "shining through" etc is still useless. The topic of this map, unlike the Ethnologue model, is not "languages spoken in Greece". It is explicitly "minority languages in Greece". Greek is not within the scope of this map at all. If Greek is the majority language everywhere, it is plainly silly to emphasise this fact through graphic devices. That would only make sense if the map was displaying a contrast between some areas where the local languages are stronger as opposed to others where they are marginal. Might be nice if we could do such a thing, but we can't as we don't have the data. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We can clearly make that "editorial decision" and label the map as "Languages of Greece" and not plainly "Minority Languages of Greece", thus including a lot more. This is perfectly fine for this article by reflecting linguistic reality and English language, academic or otherwise, sources. Let me try my graphic design (l33t) skills and then pass your judgement. --LittleTinMan (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But why would we want to make that editorial decision? Anything that makes those coloured dots less distinct will only make the map less readable, and add no information value whatsoever. If Greek is spoken everywhere, it does not need to be shown. By the way, if you really want to have a go at modifying it, I strongly recommend you take the svg version and edit it in Inkscape or something similar, so the result will still be editable for others too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fut.Perf. for redrawing the map, your work is appreciated! Polibiush (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the points (some already mentioned, twice):

1. The map does not clearly reflect the linguistic reality (i.e. that "Greek" is overwhelmingly spoken in those coloured areas) and most importantly does not reflect any official, academic or otherwise seriously sourced consensus about any ethnic minorities in Greece; we are, in the "Minorities of Greece" article after all. Most , if not all, members of these linguistic groups use primarily the Greek language (or at least in conjunction with). The linguistic map can easily perceived by a lay reader as representative of the "ethno-national" identity of the people in those areas.
2. There is obviously a disagreement on the used terms, as explained time and time again above. Linguistic terms can (and often are) be perceived, as "ethnic" or even "national" terms. They can be (and most often are) used, also to advance claims of such nature, left and right.
3. My disagreement does not, primarily, have to do with cosmetics. Cosmetics are trivial. The substrate (blend in colour) is perfectly viable to achieve (heck even those guys in Ethnologue did it) without any confusion for the lay user. The linguistic areas can and will be clearly defined.

That "ultimatum-style" editing is not appreciated. Even though I do, greatly, appreciate your efforts and tips (and l33t designing skills), this map appeared today and currently discussed in the talk page. Clearly there is no consensus. Why did you unilaterally decide to add it in the article? Further more, why did you even bother to publish it in the talk page since you seem less than appreciative of other people’s concerns? --LittleTinMan (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. (This is not a rhetorical question) Did you or did you not use the Ethnologue’s map as a reference?

(undent)

1. Of course I did. I said so a couple dozen times above.
2. I asked yesterday whether there were any objections against a map based on the Ethnologue source. There was no answer. Your removal is a needlessly hostile act and not appreciated either.
3. You have failed to respond to the essence of my objection against including Greek: Its information value will be nil. Colour codes in maps are there for displaying distinctive properties of areas. If all areas possess property X, the presence of a colour code for X is redundant. Such a property can far better be explained in words, there's no need for wasting optical space with it. The net result of "mixing" or "blending in" colours will be the same: A spot somewhere around Athens that looks optically different from the areas around it.
4. As for the terminology, I haven't heard any serious objections. Niko said he'd prefer a different term for one item, based on a false reading on some sources he quoted. Okay. From you, I've only heard waffling and lawyering, about absurdities such as replacing "Turkish" with "Osmanli". Oh, but we could also use this and we could also use that. But why the heck should we??? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I will never engage in a discussion with you (not that I forfeit the right to edit similar articles, images or whatnot - even made by you, personally), if you engage that tone and language on me ("what the fuck" etc), ever, again. Is that clear? --LittleTinMan (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And your point about possible ethnic misunderstandings misses the mark too. This map is about languages, not about ethnicities. Avoiding any possible misunderstandings is purely an issue of how to word the caption. There is no way on earth how the graphic design as such could make any difference here – how would a different colouring scheme tell the reader we are not making a claim about ethnicities? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should change Megleno-rumanian (242 google hits) to Megleno-Romanian (2,140) or Meglenitic (3,690). BalkanFever 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that BalkanFever. To be quite honest though, the so-called "google-test" (or X search engine general test) that so many people were (or still are?) fond of around here, is, most often than not, a bunch of brouhaha. --LittleTinMan (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the "u" was a mistake on my part. Correcting now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual details

Two things. First, On the Ethnologue version, Cornith, is excluded where Aravanitika is spoken (there's a break between Attica and Peloponnese) but on Future's version it's all connected, as is a part from Athens, to Megara and Salamina. Second, how comes Pontic isn't included (just out of curiosity)? Other than that the map looks much better than before. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the Corinth thing. I hadn't seen that detail on the map. Can easily be changed. As for Pontic, I said it somewhere above, the idea was just to restrict the map to the non-Greek minority languages. Including it would have led to yet more problems both POV-wise ("what's a minority?" - "Do recent migrant communities count?" etc.) and technical (yet more overlapping colours). I left out Tsakonic too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The map still shows a significant chunk of Messenia as a traditional Arvanitic-speaking area. To the best of my knowledge, the Arvanites of Messenia are located in and around Ano Dorio, a part of the Triphylia area near the border with Elis, not in the large coloured area in the centre of the prefecture. The location of Pomak and Turkish still look too far west, and the size of the Moglenitic area is overblown considering the language is spoken only in six villages according to the relevant article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll look out for better information to redraw these. As for Pomak, are you certain? The area shown here seems to match pretty well with the area across the border in Bulgaria shown as Pomak in Image:Pomaks map.png. The other points you raise seem to make sense. Anybody know of a better source on the location of Turkish (map or statistics by districts or something)? Since that's the recognised "Muslim" minority, statistics ought to be not too difficult to come by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I found this fairly serious-looking report. It has a map on p.4, of the distribution of Turkish-language minority schools. That map suggests a contiguous zone stretching across Xanthi, Komotini and the northern half of Rhodope Prefecture. Objections to using that as a basis? – About the Meglenites, we can probably go by Image:Capidan Megleno.jpg, which would indeed be stretching less far south as currently shown. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm now looking at the various relevant reports from Euromosaic. They don't have maps, but fairly detailed lists of locations broken down by prefectures. That data seems better than Ethnologue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about the Pomak area, but I always thought it lay more directly north-northeast of Xanthi. Echinos is the main Pomak centre, so drawing the blob around that should do the trick. As for Turkish, the westernmost red blob should be moved to the east of the other so that it lies more substantially in Komotini. I agree that we should use more precise data where possible. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont't see any linguistic maps of the past and nowdays for turkey ,albania or FYROM, where many millions greeks,kurds vlachs etc have lived there for thousands years.. but instead of it you drew a map for some hundred(not millions)thousands guys that spoke an x language a long time ago... [unsigned]

Map terminology

Okay, once more, I'll explain why I personally prefer to have the label say "Macedonian Slavic" rather than simply "Slavic". "Slavic" (Slavika) may, for the Greek reader, be something like a proper name for that particular variety of Slavic they speak there. If it was just that, it would be fine. However, for the outside reader, "Slavic" is primarily a generic term for the whole language family, reaching all the way up to Siberia. Therefore, "Slavic" presents us with yet another disambiguation issue. We have another type of Slavic already in the map, the Pomak bit in Thrace (it doesn't matter whether we label that as Pomak or as Bulgarian, the problem is the same either way.) If the varieties in Macedonia are "Slavic", we must tell the reader what kind of Slavic. The most neutral way of doing that is "Macedonian Slavic", the Slavic spoken in Macedonia. Then, everybody can decide for themselves what national characteristics they associate with the "M" word. As I said, the only viable alternative would be to go straight for "M" alone, but I can see why that would meet with resistance here. "Slavic" alone may be what Ethnologue chose, for whatever reasons best known to them, but it would be poor service to our readers. And as I said above, I don't accept that just because we got the factual data from them forces us to stick with their terminology; using a source is not a suicide pact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue may have chosen Slavic for a good reason. Macedonian Slavic would be even more misleading. Because the word Macedonia can describe a region as well as a country (FYROM). Calling it Macedonian Slavic makes the reader wonder what's the meaning of Macedonia. Is it FYROM Slavic or Slavic spoken in Greek Macedonia? In the former case we equate Macedonia with FYROM which is wrong because Macedonia is primarily a region, in the latter we don't need it because it is just Slavic spoken in Greek Macedonia. Dr.K. (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dispute over the confusion and use of the word "Macedonia". Firstly, Ethnologue describes the Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia as "MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE" (it also mentions though that in Greece the Macedonian language is refered to as "Slavic") [8], which doesn't change the fact that it is still the same language, the same language that is official in Fyrom but just called by a different name in Greece. Well, Wikipedia is not a Greek nationalist website. Here, Wikipedia uses the term Macedonian language, so the word "Macedonian" is acceptable on the map. But because "Macedonian" is called "Slavic" in Greece, Fut.Perf. took one extra step when making the map to include both terms ("Macedonian" and "Slavic"), when really he should have just put "Macedonian" on it since that is how the language is recognized in Wikipedia and internationally. I don't see how people can still complain after this neutral move. Polibiush (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt about the status of Wikipedia as not being a nationalist website of any type. That's why in this kind of tangled socio-politico-cultural-linguistic issues/mess we must try to analyze a few concepts so that we keep it that way. This field is, however, full of hazards and pitfalls, one of which is the n word (nationalism) just waiting to reveal itself and stick to anyone at anytime. Dr.K. (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So I think we should all stop wasting our time on deciding what term to use. Macedonian or Macedonian Slavic or Slavic. What's the difference, they are all the same one language. Using an alternative name won't improve the quality of the article in any way. Polibiush (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dr.K. (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use the term "Macedonian Slavic". I never thought that I would be saying that, but there you go. This, I hope, will stop petty arguments if a Greek user who stumbles upon this page changes it from "Macedonian" to any number of things, for various reasons. BalkanFever 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To Dr.K. I basically agree about the ambiguity of the term "M.S." – but unlike you, I'd tend to see that as a strength rather than a weakness for our purposes. The best we can do to not hurt national sensitivities is to leave the issue open, hence the ambiguity. The alternative is to follow the unanimous consensus in the linguistic literature, which does regard these varieties as varieties of "Macedonian", in the Macedonian language sense, no matter what the national identifications of its speakers may be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavic is what is redirected from the link, and not what is spoken in Macedonia, Greece. The people there call it something else. The sources in the article are too scarce to provide evidence on what is more frequent, so the self-identification principle prevails (WP:NCON). What is spoken there is called Dopia by those who speak it, regardless how close it falls to which spectrum. We all know that. If Fut.Perf. is concerned with readers that may confuse Slavic language (Greece) with e.g. Siberian Slavic, then this is double standards, because he should also be concerned about confusing Macedonia/n/s with the Greeks, so this is a non-argument. In any case, I'll drop in one more name that, I think, covers all concerns: "Eastern South Slavic". NikoSilver 13:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Academic consensus beats self-identification, hands down, any time. Academic consensus is that the Slavic spoken in Greek Macedonia indeed is Macedonian, like it or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All I see is academic hypotheses, verbosely. That's too far from consensus. Self-identification it is. That, or double-standards. NikoSilver 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me one reputable academic linguist (non-Greek, if possible) who claims that the Slavic of Greek Macedonia is not Macedonian. If there isn't, it's consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It is the other way around. You show me one that does, and does so without verbosely saying that s/he is supposing it may be so. NikoSilver 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I don't really need to provide a source that all acknowledge for a fact that the people there call it "Dopia". Do I? NikoSilver 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you'd need some documentation that international English-speaking literature uses that as a primary means of referring to it. Which you needn't try, because you know as well as I that they don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "international English-speaking literature" for it, is limited to the two quotes already in the articles. It is expresely stated that those are hypotheses, and that the self-id name is Dopia. I challenge you to find one that doesn't. NikoSilver 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not stated that it's "hypotheses", it's stated that it's the authors' own opinion. We quote sources for documenting what the authors think, not what they also report others think. Add to these, for instance: Victor Friedman, for one [9]. Also Jouko Lindstedt [10]. Cf. Roland Schmieger 1998. "The Situation of the Macedonian Language in Greece: Sociolinguistic Analysis," International Journal of the Sociology of Language"; Ilija Casule, 1998. "The Interplay of the Macedonian Standard and Dialects in a Bilingual Setting: Macedonian Language Maintenance in Australia," International Journal of the Sociology of Language 131: 105-124. Kramer, Christina E. 1999. "Official Language, Minority Language, No Language at All: Macedonian in Primary Education in the Balkans," Language Problems-Language Planning 23.3: 233-250; Hadumod Bußmann, Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft (together with probably every single general-purpose linguistic dictionary known to man, including of course Ethnologue and friends) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do you expect to find reputable linguists who would commit such an unscientific error of calling a language differently from how its speakers do? They can say it may approach this or that, but that is merely a description of where it relates. Certainly not a name for it. Need I remind the illiterates that call Macedonian (Slavic), "a Bulgarian dialect"? NikoSilver 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, how about the accurate "Eastern South Slavic"? And, why not, how about we go ahead and call it "Dopia"? (I'd be in for a move of that article too btw. I'm creating a redirect for now.) NikoSilver 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already found those reputable linguists. Like it or not, that's what linguists do. They will note that people locally call a variety X, and at the same time make the analytic scholarly claim that X is best described as a variety of Y. They will also include treatment of X in their general analyses and discussions of Y where appropriate. (Just as our Macedonian language article does, by the way, where it comes to its dialectology). I wouldn't be averse to using a local name for our purposes, just like I chose the local name "Arvanitika" over the more general (and likewise scientifically correct) opition of "Albanian", but in this case it runs against the disambig needs. We need the word "Macedonian" to disambiguate "Slavic", and we need the word "Slavic" to disambiguate "Macedonian". In this context.

"Eastern South Slavic" doesn't work for the same reasons "Slavic" alone doesn't work, it's both too general and too specific at the same time. BTW we are talking about map legends, not wikitext, so let's not mess around with scenarios of wikilinking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We can have wikilinked texts in maps (eg), but that's irrelevant indeed. Local name it is then. Thanks. NikoSilver 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Does "Dopia" "run against the disambig needs"? Is it not local? NikoSilver 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For Christssake. It is not the term used in English, and it's certainly not the term our readers will most easily recognise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is wrong and it is not a name. NikoSilver 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The language is called Macedonian and it is Macedonian whether you like it or not. Calling this language "Dopia" on wikipedia is wrong. Firstly, Dopia is just a nick-name for the Macedonian language, which was used when the first refugees from Asia Minor settled in the region. Dopia means "local" or "native", a reference introduced by the newly settled refugees to refer to the Slavic speakers. So Dopia was a term not originally used by the Slavic speakers themselves, it was introduced by others. But academics have studied the Slavic language and have confirmed that its Macedonian. Its not like Dopia is its own language that forms a seperate branch in the Slavic languages. Polibiush (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar arguments were used for Macedonian (Slavic) vs Bulgarian. I don't know about the Asia Minor Greeks theory, all I know is how the current speakers call it. And that is undebatable by all scholars. What is debatable, is how close Dopia falls to either of the two very close languages up North. So we have a variation of a variation of a variation, that also happens to be a direct variation in some places. How can we assign a name of either to that? NikoSilver 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't. Experts do it for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NikoSilver, You have to be careful when you say "I know how the current speakers call it." Perhaps some of them do call it Dopia, but one thing is certain, they do not call it "Dopia" when speaking in their Slavic language. The word "Dopia" is only used when speaking in Greek. In their own language they call it "Makedonski", since "Dopia" is Greek word. Polibiush (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote from our own article on Macedonian laguage:

In Greece, although groups may be considered to be speaking dialects heteronomous with standard Macedonian, they do not all identify their language with their national identity. The Slavic speaking minority in Greece varies on how it describes its language - most describe it as Slavic and proclaim a Greek national identity, although there are smaller groups, some of which describe it as Macedonian and espouse an ethnic Macedonian national identity, and some who describe it as Bulgarian and espouse a Bulgarian national identity. Some prefer to identify as dopii and their dialect as dopia which mean local or indigenous in Greek ^[11].

Quote again from the quote above: although there are smaller groups, some of which describe it as Macedonian

Conclusion: In Greece, only a subgroup of another subgroup speaks or identify with Macedonian language. Others speak dialects heteronomous with standard Macedonian. How can we then call this Macedonian for everyone? Dr.K. (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote again: The Slavic speaking minority in Greece varies on how it describes its language - most describe it as Slavic and proclaim a Greek national identity, The article identifies most as Slavic (not Macedonian) speaking and it goes on to say they identify themselves as Slavic speaking. Why would we want to call them Macedonian speaking? Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actually, if we switch to the Euromosaic reports as our primary data source, we might be forced to merge the "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian/Pomak" blobs into a single category after all. In that case, we can switch to a label of "Slavic" as a cover term for both. Maybe that way the problem is avoided after all. Reason is, while all the literature I've seen agrees it is in principle possible to assign some subvarieties to "M" and others to "B", different sources draw the line differently. For instance, the Euromosaic report has a Slavophone corner straddling Serres and Drama prefectures, not shown in the Ethnologue map (and according to the report less vital than Western Macedonia), and it calles those varieties Bulgarian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Great proposal Future. I agree. Thanks for the research work. Dr.K. (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for confirming. NikoSilver 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On the wikilink issue, I propose we do it like this so as to be easily editable. What do you say? NikoSilver 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, an image is just fine. Polibiush (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We all know that there are serious developments on the naming issue. And it's really easy to make it editable. If FP can upload the picture without the texts, we can even include a legend for the colors below. Like this one. NikoSilver 18:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't got much experience with this technique, but having clickable wikilinks on a map has some appeal. I'll include a version without labels when I upload my next update. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New draft

File:Greece linguistic minorities A.svg

New draft

Okay, I made a second draft on the basis of the Euromosaic data. Much of it matches the Ethnologue data quite well. Where it does not, the trouble is, those reports just give you information like "12-14 X-speaking villages in prefecture Y". If you're lucky you get "in the east of prefecture Y" or "in eparchia Z". Not very exact, that is. So, I did a few very tentative blobs in a couple cases. What do you guys say, is that acceptable?

As for technicalities of how to handle the legends, or modifying the colour scheme or whatever, I'm open for suggestions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly much better than the other one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To someone who doesnt know the impression that only those languages are spoken in those areas is created.You need legend and "dots" not covering with areas with shadow .Megistias (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That can be easily taken care of with an Ethnologue-style caption down the bottom along the lines of "Greek is spoken in all areas of the country", though your point about using dots rather than blobs could be a valid one, as it would avoid the problem of inevitable geographic imprecision. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but dots per what? Different-sized dots per prefecture? Or dots per village? I'd love to do dots per village, but to do that I'd need to know where those damned villages are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, should we represent Turkish in Kos and Rhodos? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and any sourced material but lets not give the impression again on the above.Dots and explanatory legend.Megistias (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You cant be so detailed the map wont be discernable just dot the areas to the extent of the languages.Megistias (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing that with the other guy last night. I still don't think it's either graphically feasible without getting terribly ugly and hard to read, or that it's indeed necessary. Won't repeat my arguments here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Romaniotes ,do they speak some Yevanic? Megistias (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yevanic seems to be completely extinct in Greece, or almost completely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about releasing the strangehold of Slavic on the outskirts of Thessaloniki (is it really spoken so close to the city?) to make some room for Ladino? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have another look at the sources about how they describe Thessaloniki. Ladino might be a good idea. (Stupid me, I actually had Ladino and Yevanic mentally mixed up when I answered Megistias yesterday, but it seems I nevertheless ended up correct: Yevanic is apparently not alive, or no longer distinct, while Ladino still is to some extent.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladino is almost exticnt. There are only a couple hundred speakers left in all of Greece. I don't think there would be enough speakers of Ladino to qualify for the map. Polibiush (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW the new draft looks great! Polibiush (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Great effort. Dr.K. (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. About Ladino, it could be included simply for its historical significance, rather than its present-day demographic weight. As its presence is punctual, just in the city of Thessaloniki (I guess?), it wouldn't make for a colour blob, but perhaps some symbol, like a small star or circle. We could do it similarly for Turkish in Kos and Rhodos. Or does anybody know if there are specific geographical corners in those islands where Turkish is concentrated? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Tsakonian,Pontian? Also,most of the languages presented come from groups that dont consider themselves a minority like the arvanites and vlachs.Megistias (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tsakonian and Pontian are Greek regional dialects. They are not (non-Greek) minority languages. As for your second point, keep ethnicity and ethnic matters out of this discussion, this is a map on minority languages, not the ethnic minorities that speak them. Polibiush (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec., again duplicating P's response). As I said further above, I thought it better to restrict the map to the non-Greek languages. As far as the concept of "minority" is concerned, it's about "linguistic minorities", not national minorities. The Arvanites or Vlachs are undoubtedly just that, linguistic minorities. I know many people in Greece are ideologically allergic against the term "minority" in whatever sense, but in an English-speaking international encyclopedia we can't really take consideration of that oversensitivity. To a Greek reader, the term "minority" may perhaps suggest an implication of "lack of integration in society", "lack of loyalty to the nation", "being an object of discrimination" or whatever. Please be aware that in English, to an international audience, it simply doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like original research on terminology from Fut.Perf. Minority implies a clear differentiation from the majority language which is Greek. So whichever language is spoken in Greece and IS NOT a Greek dialect, I agree it should be included. How many languages really qualify here?--   Avg    23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree, that is just those the map is showing. What's the point about "original research"? (Hint: it's not forbidden to use your own brain on talkpages.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, we forgot Romani, of course. But that's probably difficult to pin down geographically, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice example, I agree it deserves a mention although Roma in urban areas use it less and less (not a Greek-only phenomenon of course).--   Avg    23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can i say sth?

Arvanitika/Slav or Tsakonian are spoken by elderly people and so are Pontic.In fact where you put Slav speaking population there is a sea of a way more populous Pontic Greek language linguistic minority.

PS:None of the above mentioned languages is really spoken but if you want to show historical accuracy about were these almost dead languages were spoken then you are POV excluding the biggest linguistic minority by numbers after 1922. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pontic is spoken or at least known throughout all macedoniaMegistias (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• And as i read the above discussion i find hard to understand how if according to Polibius Ladino isn't qualified to be included because it's not spoken today then HTF are all the others qualified when are almost dead languages.Are Arvanitika, Vlachika or whatever alive languages?Do these colours have to do anything with reality?Cauze my mother's family is from a village above Serres near Bulgarian borders and i see the whole area in purple but in reality it's full of Pontic villages.If a minority language is spoken there that's Pontic. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Pontic Greek is a minority language indeed,( not as a language spoken by a minority but as a language spoken less than the predominant Greek so it's a minority language).Exactly the same as Arvanitika or Vlach were these people are also not considered neither do they consider them selves as minorities.In fact due to the number of speakers Pontic Greek is way more qualified.You have half Makedonia as if Slav are spoken there where it's all about Pontic except a couple of villages outside Florina.Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and i dont get where ethnlologue see this.Slavic to that extent and near thessaloniki?.......Megistias (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnologue is a joke book. Cannot be considered a fact book at all. Please provide Greek sources. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to go and check A. Karakasidou, (1993) "Politicising culture: negating ethnic identity in Greek Macedonia", in: Journal of Modern Greek Studies 11, 1-28. According to how it's quoted by Trudgill, that article contains some more detailed description of the extent of Slavic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but can't help it. By default a reference to Karakasidou and Dimitras is POV. We know all too well what these two guys stand for. --Avg (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, they aren't "two guys". More relevant, there is no "POV by default". It's always better to rely on multiple sources than single sources, but Karakasidou and Dimitras are well respected in the academic community. They may not be very popular in Greece, but that does not "by default" disqualify them. JdeJ (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had this discussion some time ago. These "studies" appeared only between 1992-1995. After the interim agreement of 1995, miraculously these "studies" that supported the irredentist claims disappeared. This is not a coincidence. --Avg (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Dimitras had any academic credentials. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have checked the Karakasidou paper. It is slightly tendentious in its political outlook, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a reliable academic source. Alas, it doesn't contain as much concrete demographic information as I hoped, nothing useful for a map, that is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, anyway since I've mentioned the issue above you can find an article dealing with the articles of that era here [12] --Avg (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from nationalistic comments. There is no preference for Greek sources, only for verifiable facts. JdeJ (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

even before 1919-23 there were many(hundred thousands) people who were speaking greek language(or both greeks and slavic dialects ) according to otthoman and greek census in macedonia.So coloured areas don't show the truth .map is inaccurate...moreover today after people exchanges 1919-1923 (for example treauty lausanne,treauty Neuilly etc) many thousands of slav people left the colourised areas and more than 1.500.000 greeks came from bulgaria and minor asia to (nowdays)greece,most of them stayed at the areas and houses turks and slavs left..

So nowdays there are more than 2.500.000 greek speaking people to Macedonia and only few thousands(30.000+)who speak slav dialects mainly in northern florina(but few of them don’t have greek identity(ouranio toxo a slavskopian party took only 3.000 votes in Macedonia) Also greeks with one or two arvanites parents are about 200.000 all over the Greece.BUT only 30 thousands of them speak a language that is not teached by greek schools,arvanitika(I am arvanitis btw)..most of them are old people. Moreover more than 5.000.000 greek speaking people live in attiki (green coloured area) and about 500.000 migrant workers(Albanians,pakistans,Russians. Etc) who came there after 1991. This map is accurate only for western thraca!and probably its information are taken of propagandist books that speaks-propagandize of so-called “great albania”-“great Macedonia”etc

Ps:The 1904 Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha recorded 373,227 Greeks and 204,317 Bulgarians in the VILAYET(region) Selânik (Thessaloniki) alone, while it makes no mention of a Macedonian Slav ethnicity (which at the time was regarded as Bulgarian). According to the same census, Greeks were also dominant in the vilayet of Manastır (Bitola), counting 261,283 Greeks and 178,412 Bulgarians.So more than 500.000 were greek speaking people and about 100 thousands slav and vlach speaking with greek identity(as next census also shows) census in 1925 (after balkan wars and before civil war between communists and anticommunists in which more than 35 thousands slavs (and thousands greeks )left greece and came to communistic yugoslavia and soviet union after defeat etc ) a census that shows the number of greek speaking natives of the area ,slav or vlach speaking people with greek or bulgarian ,romanian identity,greek speaking(that came from anatolia),jews etc http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9766/ethnologicalcompositionqi2.jpg Population Exchange in Greek Macedonia, Oxford, Elizabeth Kontogiorgi, 2006 i have to notice also that many slavs were nazi's allies ,during world war 2 and german occupation of greece, with nationalist dreams of an"indepedent macedonia" (a purpose that never changed even afterwhile they joined democratic army) last but not least i dont see any data dealing with the map

Anyway ,sorry for my english.I hope you understood me :) bye! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.132.183 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

HRW block quote

I have removed the HRW block quote, which User:P m kocovski has apparently been adding to a host of articles. The material should be summarized and referenced appropriately if it is to be of any value. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. While the report could well be mentioned in the article, it should be wikified and summarised. JdeJ (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wikified it at Human rights in Greece if anyone's interested. BalkanFever 10:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! JdeJ (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea Kekrops but have you left a full version on ANY wikipedia page? A full version should be left on one page and on the other the summarized version which you have summarized Human Rights in Greece should be left. Or a new article (Human Rights Watch)??? should be added for the FULL version of the findings of the reoprt --P m kocovski (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the summary and reference should more than suffice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Will a new page on with the complete findings on it be acceptable? Titled possibly (something on the lines of) Findings of the Humans Rights Watch report in Greece, 1993. P m kocovski (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't have an article for every conceivable individual source. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Arvanites ≠ Albanians

Regarding this, an important clarification needs to be made. Whatever the origins of Arvanitika, the Arvanites not only do not identify as Albanians, but find the label offensive. As the Helsinki source makes clear, they "loathe" its use. Language doesn't equal ethnic identity, and giving credence to the claims of Albanian nationalists that the Arvanites are really just a subgroup of ethnic Albanians is unhelpful. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and for the edit you made to the article, the present version is the best so far. Keep up the good work! JdeJ (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that version works for me too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see that Wikipedians, such as the three "minds" above, stimulate implied or indirect racism!--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Colour code for map needed

The Hammond map does not have a colour code for the ethnicities. I suggest the full map, with colour code, is included, or to remove the map until this can be rectified. Politis (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need one. You can see written on top of the colours the names of the various ethnic groups.--Dexippus (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be best with the code. Ok, have it as you please Politis (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cham Albanian atrocities

From article: "Their properties were either confiscated, destroyed or taken over by relatives who identified as Greeks. Recently, this issue has brought some controversy because some elderly representatives of the Chams and their descendants are claiming their properties back from the Greek state while Greek descendants of Cham atrocities are also claiming compensation from Albania."

Could someone possibly cite this claim? --PG-Rated (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in 1922, Racial Map Of Europe by Hammond & Co.

I have removed "Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in 1922, Racial Map Of Europe by Hammond & Co." since it is inaccurate.

1) The map shows ethnic Macedonians as Bulgarian.

2) The map shows no Greek minority on the Turkish coastline.

3) The map shows no Turkish ethnic in the Balkans.

Since this was a map made before the population exchanges, all these errors shows its inaccurate and should be removed. Maktruth (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

a map from after the population exchanges would be of great use. Maktruth (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the only reason to remove the map was that you simply don't like what it shows, I've changed it with another one. What a pity it shows the same. It's pretty obvious there are two positions on the issue and it would be more than unfair to show only one. So just stop it - either remove both maps or don't touch either of them. --Laveol ^T 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you admit that only point 1 concerns you at all? Laveol covered it, pretty much. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pomaks

Just a query Most Pomaks are fluent in their Pomak dialects

Their dialects are usually classified as dialects of Bulgarian

There dialects are always classified as Bulgarian, that is what they speak. Pomak Dialects, they speak bulgarian! Any Comments.P m kocovski (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pomaks consider their language to be Pomak, not Bulgarian but they are certainly no strangers to each other... (I think the official Slav Macedonian language is closer to Bulgarian than Pomak). There is even a Pomak manual to teach the language to thei children and it uses the Greek alphabet. Politis (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you are trying to tell me is that the language spoken in Ohrid is closer to the language in Bulgaria than what the Pomak dialects are? I find that very hard to believe. The Pomak dialects are bulgarian. Oh and as for bieng closer to bulgarian, i wouldnt know i cant understand bulgarian. PMK1 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent source Greek Helsinki

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/special_issues/CEDIME-unwgm2001/un%20wgm%20ghm-mrgg%20statement%203a%2014-5-01.doc

"Its neighbor Greece, with an ideological construct of a “100% homogeneity” to quote the Athens Journalists’ Union president among many others, is the other OSCE country besides Turkey that refuses to recognize the presence of ethno-national minorities, like Macedonians and Turks, while recognizing only one religious minority, the Muslims, as imposed by the Treaty of Lausanne. The latter are denied the right to call themselves and their associations Turks and Turkish (but allowed to call themselves and their groups Pomak or Roma). Restrictions of the freedom of association and expression of Macedonians and Turks have been criticized by ECRI, while CERD has appealed to Greece to respect self-identification and apply its General Recommendations VIII and XXIV (see above)." Mactruth (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We are already familiar with that great masterpiece. And now what? --Laveol ^T 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What a comedian. PMK1 (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aromanians in Greece

Aromanians are the biggest minority in Greece, but i see everybody ignores them.Most of the aromanians in Greece want minority status, but the aromanian societis , sponsored by the greek gouverment don't want this. Why do you consider aromanians greeks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaradianis (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the vast majority consider themselves as such. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" reverted

I've reverted this section for three reasons: 1) Some of the facts are not even controversial (e.g. Greece is not alone in the EU to having stopped collecting ethnicity/religious data) 2) Most of the issues are already covered in Human rights in Greece 3) It was very poorly written --   Avg    21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AVG your revert is borderline to vandalism, if you consider that "some" of the facts are not controversal you can discuss about this facts alone not revert the whole section, if according to your POV the section is poorly written, contribute positively to wikipedia and enrich it.

1) id like to hear what countries in EU or in the world officially do not have any minorities!? I would like to hear what countries in the EU do not permit the expression of etchnicity or don't permit an ethcnic census? What countries in EU or the World take the religious appartenence or the native language as the etchnicity of a population? And how can all this not be highly controversal!?

2) Most of the issues are not already covered in Human rights in Greece, infact there is just one vague refference in a line about the limits on the ability of ethnic minority groups to self-identify. Human rights in Greece is a wider argument and the facts expressed in the section are specific to the Minorities in Greece article.

3) A pooly written section, its a pretty lame excuse for a revert.

I am reverting the selection since there is no objective reason this facts about the Greek Minorities to be omitted.Alex Makedon (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

lol an unsigned 85.75.0.160 IP from Greece has instantly reverted my edit! no talk page refference of the revert, no reasons stated. wow if all vandals can do thingls like this to wiki it wont get farAlex Makedon (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

General article edit proposal

There is no sense in writing about linguistic-minorities and religious-minorities, and not writing about etchnic minorities. Eg. we talk about an Albanian-speaking minority and an Albanian-cultural minority but not Albanian Etcnic Minority.

Id suggest to write sections about the different Etchnic Minorities, eg. Albanian Etcnic Minority, Turk Etcnic Minority, Vlach Etcnic Minority etc... and eventually in every minority section to add a linguistic, cultural and religious refference. Something like Ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. what do you think about this? Alex Makedon (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian language intengible from Bulgarian!

Trained linguists will note significant differences between the Macedonian and Bulgarian language. Despite some similarity like it can be found among languages from the same language group, there are stark differences. Key differences in alphabet, pronunciation, vocabulary and history of development. Bulgarian and Macedonian are as similar as Welsh and American English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.229.184 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

The page is very outdated and typifies the Greek POV that there are no ethnic Minorities in the country. Therefore i am proposing to reshape the page to align with better parallel pages on wikipedia. I cannot really see why every time it is a greek related issue editing is so hard because of many users rigid way one sided way of looking at things. Proposal

Recognised Minorities

• Muslims
• Armenians
• Jews

Ethnic Minorities

• Turks
• Romani people
• Ethnic Macedonians
• Pomaks
• Arvanites
• Aromanians

anything else can go in to "Religion in Greece" and various other pages. We all know that the groups are clearly ethnic minorities and not "linguistic/cultural" ones as people would like us to believe.PMK1 (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arvanites and Vlachs at least are not and certainly do not want to be ethnic minorities. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone already said on Talk:Greece a while back, when the minorities don't want to be minorities, you know something is wrong. BalkanFever 10:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about the Arvanites and the Vlachs in Greece. Stop projecting. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They may feel like Greeks, that is perfectly fine. But they still are ethnic minorities. In some places the same group chooses to espuses their own identity, while in others they have chosen another one. What does that make the group then? Are the aromanians in ROM, greeks or aromanians? This is an oxymoron. They may have a greek conscience but they are still ethnically aromanian. Does that make an ethnic "vlach" in the ROM an aromanian, while in greece he is a "vlachophone greek"? You must ask yourself that question, i am looking forward to your reply. PMK1 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no "own" identity in the sense you mean it. All such identities are constructs and prone to change (despite any objective, at a given time, criteria for determining a group such as "Vlachs"; such identities aren't always exclusive anyhow). What's funny (and repulsive) is that this immense interest in Greece's minorities from the neighbouring country and their possible "mistreatment" and "oppression" stems mainly from competing nationalism and not genuine "humanitarian spirit". 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Same with the supposed minorities of Greeks in the neighbouring countries. BalkanFever 12:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have I ever stated otherwise (at least in regards to the Republic; however, rest assured that once there were people identifying as "Greeks" in yer homeland ;-)? I'm not even speaking of "supposed minorities" here. There ARE minorities in Greece (what is this article all about? PMK is just fussing over the meaning of "ethnic" here; too much ado about nothing since the feelings of every minority are clearly stated, e.g. there are "10-30k SlavMacs in Greece"), even a RoMacedonian one and there IS plenty of room for improvement. My comment above still stands. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greece with all her faults is more democratic, tolerant and respectfull of human rights than any of the developing countries surrounding her. Just check the Democracy_index. Compared to the other Balkan states Greece is...well it can't be compared to the other balkan states in that area. It is the only functioning democracy in an area full of hybrid regimes and quasi democracies.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, this makes the constant complaining and victimization all the funnier (I'd hope that you agree with my comment, to an extent, nonetheless). 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on the need to do more for the Slavomacedonian minority, like recognise them to begin with, the Turkish, Pomak and Roma minorities and others who have been unfairly dealt with in the past by the Greek state. Personally I don't consider the Roma to be non-Greek or a minority since they are greek speaking Orthodox citizens of the state of Greece, hence Greek by any definition. If some want to consider themselves allogeneis then that too is their right and should be respected.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. You're projecting the experience of the Vlachs in Skopje onto those in Greece, without explaining that the Vlachs north of the border were deliberately encouraged to abandon their traditional Greek identity and develop a separate, but decidedly BalkanFeveresque, ethnic conscience as an adjunct to the ethnic "Macedonian" nationalism of the majority. Vlach leaders in Greece have repeatedly declared that they are not an ethnic minority, and have no desire to be recognized as such. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt that Vlachs outside of Greece have or ever did have a Greek ethnic consciousness. Unless you imply their loyalty to the Patriarchate of Constantinople but that is another story.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They did, in places like Bitola. And no, I don't mean religious affiliation alone. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, one could always get hold of the Clogg book cited here (Aspects...) and divide the article in similar sections. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some did have a pro-greek feeling in Bitola, it is interesting though if these people ethnically Greek you would imagine them to speak Greek and not another language. Are you trying to say to me that all Aromanians are greeks, but the ones in greece have stuck true to their roots while the "skopje vlachs" have been deliverately encouraged to be able to have their own ethnic identity. That is very bizzare. Xenovatis it is interesting that you do not consider the Roma to be a minority.

So What have we concluded from this discussion, is it time to move on from cultural/linguistic minorities to "ethnic" minorities?? PMK1 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? would be an appropriate question. PMK1 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you're trying to impose ethnic minority status onto groups that do not identify as ethnic minorities. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)