Template talk:Greeks

message: Why would anybody insist on having a red link to a deleted page here? If anybody has concrete plans for recreating it - without falling foul of the prohibition of re-creating content deleted at AfD, i.e. creating something substantially different from the old deleted article - then why should this link be included here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, could you guys please stop edit-warring about it, like, for instance, now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's delete all red links while we're at it. El Greco (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the link to [[Anti-Hellenism]]?

message: I'm going to remove the "persecution" section from this template, for the following reasons:
*It is poor taste to pick out this group of articles to push forward the image of Greeks in historical victim role. It's not done in other comparable templates.
*It's tendentious and POV: this goes both for the decision to have a "persecution" section but not a section referring to Greeks in those episodes of their history where they were the aggressors (don't tell me such don't exist). It also goes for the selection of articles into this section (the implication that, for instance, the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is primarily about a story of persecution against Greeks may appear self-evident to some here, but certainly isn't straightforward NPOV.)
*Most importantly, every single article linked to from this section is of alarmingly poor quality. They are all hotbeds of POV-pushing (from various sides), edit-wars, and have ended up as abominable dumps of propaganda junk and counter-propaganda junks. Unfortunately, no prospect of improvement in sight. These are not articles we ought to be proud of, and certainly not articles we should direct our readers to in a showcase of our coverage of Greek topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we just suppose to ignore the fact that the Greeks were persecuted? What kind of representation of Greek History and the Greek people is that? Nobody has a perfectly clean history. The Jewish people have an entire section related to their persecution, and the Greeks should just forget and/or ignore theirs? Come on. Not adding that information in the template is by itself a reason for POV. If you don't like the persecution heading title stick it under the history section. Don't tell me those articles you deleted from the template are not an important part of the history of the Greeks because they are. El Greco(talk) 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't accept is the inherent implication that it is a characteristic of Greek history that Greeks were consistently at the receiving end of persecution. They weren't. Not in 1821-30, not in 1919-1922, and not in 1963-1974. The comparison with the Jews is an absurd overstatement of navel-gazing ethnic masochism. Those parts of the Greek historical experience in which Greeks where victims is by no means a prominent enough part of their history that we would need to highlight it, and it alone among all other aspects of their history, in this overview. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Greeks who where told to leave their homeland (Asia Minor) during the Pop transfer, who never saw their homes again, and those who died in Smyrna were what? Don't they represent who the Greeks are today? If those events didn't happen it's safe to say the history of the Greeks would be different, but saying that those events are not prominent to their history is like ignoring ones past. It happened and it deserves to be told. Go look at Athens, its population basically doubled overnight after the Pop transfer. Isn't that prominent enough for you? El Greco(talk) 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. NikoSilver 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you say, but I have nothing to add to or subtract from what I said above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the undue part definitely holds water in your previous comment, especially with the vast history of the Greeks. How about we change section title or put these and other significant moments down below the "history" heading? NikoSilver 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I suggested in my frst comment. Remove the Persecution section and place the articles under the History section. El Greco(talk) 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which others and how many others? Navboxes shouldn't get overloaded with content or they get useless and cumbersome. Also, please don't forget the part of my objections relating to the quality of these articles. They are not showcase articles, by any stretch of the imagination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So whatever doesn't look good we just sweep under the rug? Is that how it works? El Greco(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "doesn't look good", do you mean that the articles don't look good, or that the history treated in them doesn't look good? If the first, yes, certainly, they don't look good at all, and we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have. If the second, forget it, I don't "debate" on this level. -- In any case, articles are made accessible by linking to them from main articles, within the text, and by having them in categories. Cramming them into "navigation boxes" is not "not sweeping them under the rug", it's pushing them to the front. We have a couple hundred articles in :Category:History of Greece and its subcats; every one of them might have equal claim to be linked to. Why push this group at the expense of others? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, by doesn't look good, I'm refering to your comment on the quality of the article. Just because it's a poor quality article doesn't mean it's any less important than any other article on the Greeks. And we should indeed not systematically lead our readers to the very worst of what we have is POV. We are not here to tell readers what to read. It's their choice, if they wish to read an article on the Pop exchange or the Smyrna fire then so be it. It is not our job as editors to hide them. They are placed in the infobox for ease and prominent relevance to the topic at hand. Even Niko agrees that A significant proportion of the Greek population in modern day Greece and the diaspora originates from those places. The high diaspora/homeland ratio of the Greeks is definitely not a coincidence. I'm certain if you go ask a group of Greeks you will find a bunch of them who originate from Asia Minor, are you going to tell them, that their history as Greeks (ie Smyrna, Pop Transfer) is not prominent to the rest of the Greeks? El Greco(talk) 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I have, you just don't want to accept it, and have decided to ignore it. El Greco(talk) 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Persecution" section 

message: just a question why does this article still have the acronym FYROM as opposed to Republic of Macedonia? most other sources on wikipedia link to ROM not to FYROMP m kocovski (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it.Xenovatis (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, it clearly distinguishes from the Greek region of Macedonia. Plus most other templates have moved onto Republic of Macedonia. P m kocovski (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on WP:MOMAC "The appellation FYROM should be avoided for general use, except in contexts where other long country names are also abbreviated,[2] or in articles which already use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia." seeing as it is a template the Xenovatis version should be reinstated.P m kocovski (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  republic of macedonia 

message: It is extremely odd to place the Arvanites at the category of ethnic Greek people since the Arvanites have a language and an ethnic background different from the Greeks. No serious research can confirm the statement of this template. This type of exaggerations is clearly Greek propaganda that should be battled firmly by serious Wikipedia contributors. Let me inform that the article Arvanites is currently hijacked by Greek nationalist users. --Albanau (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arvanites are not ethnic Greeks 

message: ok, just realized that contrary to my edit-comment there is actually a grouping for norther eprirotes. however i still think somehow albania (and possibly turkey) should feature up there with greece and cyprus. in fact, either those three or four countries; or just greece alone. am not sure why those two countries only are chosen?Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  albania  

message: Does this template need dozens of local subgroups which actually lead to articles about regions? This is a template about the Greeks and their subgroups, if a distinct subgroup within the Greek nation exists. Roumeliotes, Thracians, some selected (how?) islanders etc with no respective articles and any distinct identity, are just separated by region making it look like a geographical template. I think this is totally needless. 94.65.54.117 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical subgroups...why? 

message: , I would appreciate it if you desisted in trying to include the Aromanians in an ethnic Greek template. The Aromanians are not ethnic Greeks. Period. Aromanian is also not a language spoken by ethnic Greeks. Their high degree of cultural assimilation has not made reliable sources classify the Aromanians within Greek subgroups. Super Ψ Dro 10:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would appreciate it if you stopped your endless nationalist POV tinkering in all these articles. Like it or not, the Aromanians in Greece have assimilated into the Greek nation, and are now part of it. That's it, there's no turning back the clock. You can't undo that, no matter how hard you try here on Wikipedia. It's over, accept it and move on. And don't bother edit-warring, you are just wasting everyone's time. Khirurg (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aromanians