Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:46, 20 March 2006

Countries Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:FAOL

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Greece" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Archives
Archive 1

Length of article

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of references

Well, we don;t need any original research to see the corruption and nationalism of Greeks. Just look at the way the pages are written: no proper references, classic nationalistic POV, refusal to accept the correct official data.... Basically, the WHOLE PAGE IS A DISGRACE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.17.70 (talk • contribs)

You really have a big problem with Greeks... Honestly I can't understand why! Where ru from? Let me guess somewhere in the Balkans? You know what mate? Just get over it and accept the fact that with the way and language that you are trying to put forward your arguments will never be heard by anyone serious...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.92.255 (talk • contribs)

Demographics of Greece must include Greeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bogus tourism statistic

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

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

Alphabet

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

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

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

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

If you want more Greek references, there's a chapter by A. Kontogiannis, in: M. Kopidakis (ed.), Ιστορία της ελληνικής γλώσσας, Athens 1999, ISBN 960-201-122-X. Lukas 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History section is huge (τεράστιο)

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

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

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

FYROM name

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

Official Country Names

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

Official EU website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official UN website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official NATO website

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Enlarged0777.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unassessed country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles