Talk:Greek language/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inclusions of "the Black Sea" in the info box

The infobox currently includes a section that lists the primary "regions" where the Greek language has been spoken. That list currently looks like this:

• Greece
• Balkan Peninsula
• Eastern Mediterranean
• Asia Minor
• Black Sea
• Sicily

Recently User @Austronesier: removed "Black Sea" from this list with the comment, "Pontic Greek is spoken on the mainland off the Black Sea coast." I've undone this edit because I believe it stems from a misunderstanding and because the Black Sea is a valuable entry to this list. Greek-speaking communities have existed (or still exist) all around the shores of the Black Sea region and are already discussed in this article. Based on this, it seems clear to me that the "Black Sea" belongs in this list.

I think the misunderstanding here (and please correct me if I'm wrong Austronesier) is that they seem to think the inclusion of "Black Sea" on this list was only to cover the Greek spoken in the Pontic region in what is now Turkey. While the Pontic region is located on the shores of the Black Sea, and so can (arguably) be covered by that label in this list, the region also extends quite a ways inland and is (arguably) not just a part of the Black Sea region. I think this is the point Austronesier was trying to make. While this is perhaps a reasonable argument for the addition of "Pontos" to the region list, it is clearly not a valid argument for the removal of "Black Sea" which, as is stated in this very article:
→"Historically, there were traditional Greek-speaking settlements and regions... in several countries in the Black Sea area, such as Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan" --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

First, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan could be considered "Black Sea" in any stretch of geographical reasoning. Second, These lists in infoboxes are intended as broad strokes not as comprehensive lists of every place that Greek is now, or has ever been, spoken. If the latter were the case, then you'd have to include every country and region from the Indus River to the Atlantic Ocean. That's a fairly ridiculous insistence. The region where Pontic Greek was spoken easily fits within the broad canvas of Asia Minor (which also reaches to include Armenia within its broad strokes boundary). Decide where the broad strokes of places where Greek was a substantial language of the population, not just the language of a small trading colony, and paint those areas in a few broad illustrative strokes. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your description of what the "region" section is for and think the current list does a good job of fulfilling that task. If I were to make any changes, I might argue for the removal of Greece as it's not really the name of a "region" and the territory of Greece is arguably included in "the Balkan Peninsula." As for what countries/territories are covered by what entries on the list:

• The Pontic Region clearly falls under the umbrellas of both Asia Minor and the Black Sea, so we're all good on that important front
• The Balkan Peninsula covers modern Greece as well as the Greek-speaking communities the do or did exist in modern-day Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania.
• Asia Minor covers the major Greek settlements in Constantinoupoli, the Hellespont, and the west coast of modern Turkey, as well as the Cappadocian and Pontic regions
• The Eastern Mediterranean includes the Greek-speaking communities all around the Eastern Med. namely in Cyprus, Egypt, Syria, the Levant, and the south coast of modern-day
• Sicily calls out the major and longstanding settlements on the island which isn't necessarily included in the Eastern Mediterranean
• The Black Sea the functions on this list much like the Eastern Med. entry does. There were major and longstanding Greek-speaking settlements in The Pontic region, the Caucus region, and what is today southern Ukraine, coastal Romania, and coastal Bulgaria.<be/>

This seems (more or less) like an appropriately complete list of the major areas where Greek has been and/or is spoken.

As for your points that Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of Asia Minor... after checking with a couple of appropriate wikis and the encyclopedia Britannica entries for Asia Minor, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; all the sources seem pretty definitive about not be considering either nation to be part of Asia Minor. Instead, all sources seem to agree that they are part of the "Caucus region". Perhaps I could be convinced that we need to start referencing Greek's "presence in the Caucus region" when discussing Armenia and Azerbaijan, but given that the overall Caucus region is a region defined by it being on the shores of the Black Sea, and given that Armenians, at least, has clear historical ties to the Black Sea and has controlled territory on that body of water through much of their history I feel quite comfortable including them in the overall label of the Black Sea region. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have my doubts that Greek was a major language of the population in either Armenian or Azerbaijan. Especially since the Armenian translation of the Bible was done relatively early in the process of transmission. That indicates that Armenian was the language of Armenia and Greek only used by a few elites or trading villages. That is not enough Greek to be counted in the list of places Greek was spoken. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

These are solid points, and perhaps we should discuss if it's worth removing mention of these from the article entirely. However, I don't think these points are particularly germane to this topic. The use of Greek all around the Black Sea doesn't hinge on the use of Greek in Armenia and Azerbaijan. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa:, please leave it how it was, until you achieve consensus here for your point of view. You cannot merely revert other editors to enforce your preferred version of how the Infobox should read.

In your comment above, you misrepresent the history of changes regarding the inclusion/exclusion of "Black Sea" from the list, saying: "Recently User Austronesier removed "Black Sea" from this list". Yes; but in fact, it was you who first introduced "Black Sea" into the list, in this edit. It was only several days later, that Austronesier removed it in this edit, restoring how it was before your change. At this point, according to the principles of content dispute resolution, the next step would be for you to leave the original content in place while discussing it here on the Talk page, not reinserting it once again as you did here.

I have restored the status quo ante by undoing your last edit. Per WP:BRD, please continue to discuss here with the original version in place, and do not insist on your resinserting your preferred version until a consensus is achieved here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've broken protocol here. I genuinely thought I was protecting community consensus from a misunderstanding. As for your charge that I've, "misrepresent the history of changes regarding the inclusion/exclusion of "Black Sea," if you look closely at the changes surrounding the edit you called out specifically you'll see that I didn't only add Black Sea to the list of regions. I created the entire list because there was a dispute about regions being listed under the Nations parameter. To solve this issue I removed the Nations list altogether and created a Regions list. I based this list on the major regions listed in this article as well as the Modern Greek and Ancient Greek articles. I considered those to represent community consensus. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

With respect to the content dispute, please note that the documentation for the {{Infobox language}} template describes the |region= param this way: "geographic region in which it is mainly spoken". "Black Sea" does not meet this criterion. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Listed: at WT:GREECE. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Listed: at WT:LANG. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• The |region= parameter is used to specify any sub-national regions where the language is spoken, and it's usually needed if the language not spoken throughout the full extent of the country given in the |states= parameter. This is not needed here, because Greek is the dominant language of both Greece and Cyprus, and these can simply be given with the |states= parameter. Either parameter is used only for countries or regions where the language has a significant presence in modern times. – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Pontic Greek is defined by the Black sea, it is or was used by the descendants of Greek colonies from all around the Black sea, not just in Asia minor. See: Greeks in Russia and the Soviet Union, Greeks in Ukraine. Mariupol, a major historic Greek concentration in Ukraine, is on the opposite side of the sea from Asia Minor, on the shore of the enclosed Sea of Azov. The Mediterranean Sea was Mare Nostrum for the Romans. The Black Sea was an inner lake of the Greek colonies that were scattered all over its shores, rarely going in mhc inland. Historic languages are not defined by modern borders.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Bob, you're talking about historic usage, not the way it is now, correct? This discussion is specifically about what should be displayed in the |region= param of the Infobox. If I understand Uanfala correctly, |region= should be empty, and |states= should be used instead. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Not entirely historic. Was alive in early 20th, and today it is an endangered language, but still has live speakers on the Black sea in areas that were formerly the USSR (Ukraine, Russia, Georgia). Historically this was a major branch, and it is of some importance.--Bob not snob (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  User:Bob not snob is certainly correct that there is still current usage (albeit quite diminished) of Greek around the Black sea. It's extensive enough that some coastal regions of Ukraine and Romania have Greek as an official minority language. and while it's not an official language (minority or otherwise) in Russia or Georgia, my understanding is that there are (or at least have been in the last 50-100 years) substantial Greek-speaking communities in the coastal caucus regions of those nations as well. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• To make things clear, yes, I removed "Black Sea" in the context of the preceding "edit summary discussion" about "Pontus". After the addition of "Asia Minor", "Black Sea" appeared redundant to me but NB only with regards to Pontic Greek proper. But since the northern shore of the Black Sea also hosts contemporary Greek-speaking communites—albeit diminshed in the course of the 20th century due to Stalinist repressions and the post-Soviet exodus—I agree that the inclusion of "Black Sea" adds important information to the infobox (in |states=). –Austronesier (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear I wasn't wildly misinterpreting your edit/edit comment, @Austronesier:. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

So, while it seems there is no real dispute here about the notion that the Black Sea region is one of the major regions where Greek has ben/is spoken. However, it does appear we've run into an issue that seems to come up on this page a lot: the uniqueness of this page in describing not a snapshot of a language at one moment in time, but rather the entire history of a language. If this is the point of this article (which it seems vaguely to be, though I realize this issue is still somewhat contentious) then many of the parameters in the infobox aren't really designed for use on a page like this. As Uanfala points out about the Region parameter:

• "The |region= parameter is used to specify any sub-national regions where the language is spoken, and it's usually needed if the language not spoken throughout the full extent of the country given in the |states= parameter"
  

This isn't really applicable to an article that overviews 3000 years of a language's existence. However, It does seem valuable, and logical, that we should have a section of the infobox which gives, at a glance, information on where in the world this language has been spoken. Is there a different parameter that makes more sense? Can we make one? Or do we just bend the meaning of this parameter for this rather unique page.
User:Mathglot suggests that these boxes should only be about modern usage but it seems that that's not actually the point of this article. User talk:TU-nor recently removed the Nation and Minority parameters from the infobox citing "Removing per outcome of RfC a few months ago; see Greek language#RfC". If this article is about current usage then these should actually be in the infobox. Given that these parameters appear inapplicable to this article; and given that this article spends most of its time discussing Greek's usage throughout the ages; and given that there already exists a separate article (Modern Greek) which ostensibly deals exclusively with the current usage, form, etc. of Greek; it seems logical that this article's infobox needs to reflect this article's discussion of Greek throughout its history. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, it seems that no one has raised any unanswered objections to the inclusion of "Black Sea" in the regions list. Specifically, the user that originally removed it from the list (Austronesier) has clarified that the removal was indeed based on a misunderstanding as was initially believed. Given this fact, it seems its presence on the Regions list represents the community's consensus and so I'll be reinstating. There is still the technical issue that the Regions parameter is not exactly designed from the purpose it's being used for on this page, though that should be dealt with separately from what should be on the list. Finally, I think two additional changes to the list are warranted:

1. I think "Greece" ought to be removed from the list.
2. I think the change made by User:79.23.116.138 (changing "Sicily" to "Southern Italy") should be reinstated.

"Greece" feels inappropriate on this list because Greece is a modern country with borders which isn't really applicable to the historically focussed tone of this article or to a list or general regions where Greek has been/is spoken. Since all of the territory of the nation of Greece is already covered by the "Balkan Peninsula" or "Eastern Mediterranean" entries on the list anyway, removing it seems like a no brainer.
The Sicily change was (correctly) rejected because this debate was going on when it was made, but I think it's pretty obviously a good change. Greek was (and in some cases is) spoken not just exclusively on Sicily but all over southern Italy.
--Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not against including the areas around the Black Sea in the list, but it cannot possibly be done like it is now, with the link going to the Black Sea article. That is not a region with Greek-speaking people, but as the target article says, a body of water. So who are speaking Greek in the Black Sea? Swimmers? Fish? Please find a better way. --T*U (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like an issue to me, @TU-nor:. The Eastern Mediterranean, which is also a body of water, has a target article which is just a stub of an article which doesn't make any reference to a historic Greek-speaking presence throughout the area (or discuss anything about the various peoples who live(d) around it). By contrast, the Black Sea article gives rather extensive information about the peoples and cultures who populate its shores currently and historically (though the historic information could be expanded). furthermore, the Black Sea article is the only article on Wikipedia to cover the topic of the regions as a whole. It makes explicit references to historic Greek presence, discusses the Greek name for the sea at length, depicts a map of the historic Greek settlements in the region, and makes mention of the fact that the Greek presence was all around the Black Sea's shores and was heavily influenced by sailing and trading on the sea. I would argue this is just about the perfect article to link to, though perhaps the historic information on that article could/should be beefed up if we link to it.

Separately does anyone have any issues with my two other proposed changes for the regions section? --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your comparison to Eastern Mediterranean is off the mark, since that article explicitly describes it as a region in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, as opposed to a "body of water". Unless there are other editors finding the Black Sea link odd, I will not use time on it, but I find it strange. About the other changes, I support changing Sicily to Southern Italy, but I think Greece should be a separate (and the first) entry. --T*U (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea, I agree linking to the Black Sea article is perhaps not perfect, but seeing as it's the only option for an article that describes this region in its entirety (and does do a good job at it) I think it's reasonable. As for keeping Greece, it seems redundant but definitely not harmful so I'm happy to go along with that and I definitely agree Greek should stay at the top of the list if it stays on. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Greece is not redundant, only overlapping, like several other regions in the list. Most Greek islands are usually not, if ever, included in the definition of the Balkan peninsula.--T*U (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, islands would fall under the Eastern Med. region, but I take your point re: redundancy vs. overlapping. --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: What is the appropriate amount of time to wait before enacting these changes? --Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would state clearly right here what the apparent consensus is (it's not 100% clear right now), then give it a week. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As per the recommendation of User:TaivoLinguist, here is a concise summation of what I understand the consensus to be at this point relative to the 3 changes I have suggested:

• Remove "Greece" from the regions list

• Consensus is that the change should not be made. Because of Greece's particular importance to the Greek language, it was argued that it should stay and stay at the top of the list.

• Change "Sicily" to "Southern Italy"

• Consensus is that this change makes sense and the change should be made.

• Add "Black Sea" on the list of regions

• Consensus is that this change should be made. While all seem to agree that the Black Sea region should be listed, the specific article, Black Sea, is considered by some to be imperfect as it's primary focus is the body of water and not the community on its shores. However, given that there is not a better article on this topic and that the Black Sea article does go into a lot of detail about the region's communities, including specifically addressing Greek speakers' presence in the region, linking to the Black Sea page is acceptable

If there are still no objections in a week's time, I will make the two changes above and list (alphabetically except for "Greece") the agreed upon regions in the infobox thusly:

• Greece
• Asia Minor
• Balkan Peninsula
• Black Sea
• Eastern Mediterranean
• Southern Italy

If I have misrepresented anyone's point of view or if anyone has new/additional points to be made, please do so. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Shores of Black sea may be more precise. While there are a few small islands in the Black sea (e.g. St. Anastasia Island) they are mostly close to the coast, and are insignificant in relation to the coastal settlements.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Skoulikomirmigotripa's list and this slight amendment. Black Sea without explanation is an imperfect target, because the page does not mention the Black Sea coast as a cultural or historical area. –Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bob not snob, I don't love "Shores of..." as the solution, primarily for cosmetic reasons, but am happy to go along if nothing else can be agreed upon; I certainly agree with you and Austronesier that target is imperfect. I think a better fix would be a minor expansion of the Recorded history section of the Black Sea article. There is already a brief mention to Greek presence and a pretty comprehensive map of Greek colonies in the area. Would expanding the Recorded History section and linking directly to it satisfy our desire from greater precision? –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa: That's a good idea, since it will fill a gap in the coverage of historical areas that do not fully fit into the Western-centric geopolitical and geographical divisions. And this looks like a great source for that endeavor. –Austronesier (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a great source, thanks! –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The Black Sea#Recorded history section is embarrassingly sketchy. I'd think there should be a whole article on History of the Black Sea region (as there is for History of the Mediterranean region) as the "main" article for that topic. Until that article is written, it can be a redirect to Black Sea#Recorded history. A starting point for filling out that article could be Neil Ascherson's Black Sea (book).

The link text in this article should probably be Black Sea region. --Macrakis (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with expansion of the Recorded history section and with the creation of a History of the Black Sea region page and would be happy to help out with both.

I will point out that the use of "Black Sea region" as the link text here (or in general) could cause some problems since the area roughly equivalent to what Greeks call the Pontic region is now officially called the Black Sea Region in Turkey today and has page with that name. I don't know what to do about that fact, but I thought I'd point it out. At least in the context of this infobox, I think link text for an article focused on the history of the Black Sea region shouldn't really require the term "region" appended to it. I mean, it's in a section of the infobox titled "Region" and it's by no means unusual to talk about the Black Sea as a single region. I won't hold anything up over this semantic point, that's just my 2 cents.

I'll start this process by working on some initial expansions of the Black Sea's recorded history section and incorporating the good sources listed here. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just an update to those following this conversation, I've gone ahead and created the History of the Black Sea region page, set it to redirect to the Black Sea#Recorded History section, and expanded that section with a brief paragraph about Greek presence there. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The only points added to the conversation since consensus a week ago have been about the exact form the Black Sea entry should take. Given that, I'm going to make the changes stated a week ago and we can continue to tweak the form if there's disagreement. —Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with change. As for precision it is a trade off with brevity, I am OK with either "Black Sea" or "Shores of Black Sea", this is a minor point.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Scripts used to write to Greek in the Infobox

Recently every script used to write Greek, current and historic, have been added to the infobox (with the exception of Arabic for some reason). I'm curious how the community feels about this. As this is an article that gives an historic overview of the language, I'm all for including previously used scripts in the infobox but I'm not sure Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic make sense in the infobox. The Hebrew and Arabic scripts are either used very sparsely or now completely unused and all three are used for minor (though interesting) dialects and not for standard Greek. While all three certainly merit a mention in the article, I'm not sure they should be in the infobox. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about mentioning or not mentioning these scripts in the infobox, but if they are to be mentioned, the explanatory additions you removed will have to be reinserted, preferably with parentheses, like Latin alphabet (for Italiot Greek), Hebrew alphabet (for Yevanic) etc. Without these explanations, it looks as if all the different scripts are equally relevant, which they are not. --T*U (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, parenthetical qualifiers sound good. I support their use if these stay. I removed what I did because it looked sloppy and was only applied to some of the scripts. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the parenthetical qualifiers are good here. I think that listing the myriad scripts used for Greek over the ages is informative, as it shows the cosmopolitan nature of Greek.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd always tend towards keeping the infobox lean and clean. It's meant for a high-level overview of the most relevant information bites, and the only thing that's really relevant at that point is that the Greek language has its own alphabet, the Greek alphabet. Everything else is detail for further down. Boxes need to be small so that you can take them in at a glance; they shouldn't compete for completeness with the article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Future. The infobox is for a top-level summary, not for an exhaustive catalog. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Skoulikomirmigotripa, Fut.Perf. and Taivo. In a bird's-eye view as intended with the infobox, only the most relevant info is needed. Infobox stuffing always generates more stuffing ad infinitum (people might eventually start to insert even font types at some point). –Austronesier (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Count me in, too! I will support a lean infobox with only main details. My point was (and is) that if other scripts are mentioned, they should be qualified with their (limited) scope. --T*U (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm generally in-line with this (infoboxes should stay slim) line of thought. But, in keeping with this article's historical overview premise, I think it's worth stopping to ask: are there are any scripts besides the Greek alphabet which actually are worth putting in the infobox? I'm not sure the answer is yes, just thought I'd pose the question explicitly.

Of those just removed, Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic scripts clearly do not belong in the infobox. They were/are used for specific and minor dialects.

Greek Braille, unlike all the others, has been in the infobox for a long time... I'd argue it should never have been there. Its place is in the Modern Greek article's infobox where it currently is.

Linear B and Cypriot syllabary are more interesting propositions though. As the language's oldest attested forms of writing maybe one or both deserve a place in the infobox? –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Since both of these ancient scripts were of such minor importance in the history of Greek, I don't think they belong in the infobox. No one is going to learn Linear B as part of their Greek scholarship except for a miniscule number of specialist scholars. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yevanic is basically dead, as well. I could see use of Latin. Maybe Arabic is used in Hamidiyah? At the same time I fail to see why either should be in the infobox.--Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Infinitive of Ancient Greek verb

:In the section on the verb there is no mention of the ancient infinitive, which was most important, since it was often used as a noun, and could be preceded by the definite article in various cases, according to the syntax of the sentence. I believe that modern Greek has no infinitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 22::19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Many Greek Wikipedia editors confuse the ISO name Ελληνικά with the name of the language ελληνικά which starts with a small case letter like any other language

Many Greeks who write on Wikipedia make that mistake. They confuse the name of an ISO with the name of their language.

Greek nationalism (which isn't a grammatical rule as some believe) promotes capital letters in the place of small case letters in the nationally related words.

We write ελληνικά, αγγλικά, γαλλικά.

If one votes for the extreme right, his/her rules differ, but are not the rules of the Greek language.

When we select different languages on pages, replace the erroneous Ελληνικά with ελληνικά. The ISO doesn't change the rules of the country, and yes it has a name. Even if someone uses the ISO standardization, he/she isn't supposed to confuse the name of an ISO to synonymous terms used by the population and also officially. ISO isn't the sole and absolute authority. If the Greeks are so strict with the ISO standardization they should use it more often in gene, besides the right wing attempt to change the Greek language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410F:4AAB:8523:7B46:C3A2:29B8 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References - Citations #1 - Removal

I feel this needs to be removed or alternative information. The site they link to validate or review is a paid subscription requiring a single user to pay $199/mo or $480/yr to view. Tekeek (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly ok per WP:PAYWALL. Many reliable sources (e.g. most academic books) are not available for free. If you are in doubt about any information here which is based on that specific source, you may ask here. Many editors (including me) have institutional access to Ethnologue (e.g. via campus libraries) and can cross-check the content. –Austronesier (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

“Northern Epirus”

Seems like we have a case of WP:JDL here. Why is the term Northern Epirus is considered “controversial”? Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Because obviously the modern term "Northern Epirus" has irredentist associations, it should not be included in a infobox that lists countries. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

a term used to refer to those parts of the historical region of Epirus, in the western Balkans, which today are part of Albania. and The term is used mostly by Greeks and is associated with the existence of a substantial ethnic Greek population in the region as per the Northern Epirus article. The fact that it can be used to denote irredentist concepts is a separate matter mentioned, again, in the Northern Epirus page. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Was there any kind of cultural of linguistic area of "Northern Epirus" before Greece started to claim the territory in the end of the 19th century or early 20th century? No, hence the politically charged name does not have a place in the infobox. It is like adding to the infobox of the Albanian language that it is spoken in "ethnic Albania's lands in Greece". Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The term is purely geographical (just like Anatolia for example) and it's referring to the historical region of Epirus, the northern part being in modern-day Albania. And as I said before, the fact that the term can be used to denote irredentist concepts is a separate matter. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, a modern concept created during the rise of the Balkan nationalist era is not purely geograhical. Furthermore, not all Greek-speaking settlements are in the territory of the historical Epirus, especially Nartë and Zvernec. You wanted to make a change and it got reverted by 3 editors. I do not see any reason why to keep discussing this. If you insist, you might want to follow the steps described by WP:RFC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We really shouldn't add a geopolitical (no, not "purely geographical") term here which is not known, or – if known – not used by most of our readers. We don't write that Uyghur spoken in East Turkestan either. –Austronesier (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair. Ergo, I propose putting counties instead. For example “Albania (Gjirokastër, Korçë, Vlorë)” or something similar. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We will not clutter the infobox with details that can be elaborated in the article. "Southern Albania" is enough for the infobox. You can not write there "Korce, Gjirokaster and Vlore", because not only it clutters the infobox, but they are three cities only, and in one or two of them Greek is not spoken. You could write "Korce, Gjirokaster and Vlore counties", but it is long and clutters the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm referring to the counties and not the towns themselves (click the links). Every other country in the infobox has these details which is why Albania cannot be an exception. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

One reader who does not visit the links might think that there are 3 cities where Greek is spoken in Albania. I removed redundant details that clutter the infobox. Antioch is part of Anatolia, and Sicily is part of Southern Italy. Every other country had more details because you added redundant and even misguiding details some 5 days ago. Antioch is not outside of Anatolia and Sicily is not outside of southern Italy as you implied. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

How is Antioch a part of Anatolia? [1]? Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Today, Anatolia is sometimes considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey (2nd lede para of Anatolia). But, yeah, for consistency with the current primary definition in that article, Antakya/Hatay can be mentioned separately. –Austronesier (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are sources that say that Antioch is part of Anatolia (for example antioch&f=false) but it appears that there are two views on that. So it is not an issue for me if it stays in the infobox as separate from Anatolia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox "native to"

The whole concept of "native to" is problematic -- and not just for Greek. Is it supposed to represent oldest places where we know the language was spoken? all the places where it has been spoken as a first language historically? all the places where it has been used as a language of civilization?

Certainly nowadays there are vanishingly few first-language Greek speakers in Istanbul, Anatolia, Antioch/Hatay, Egypt, and southern Italy. Were there thriving Greek-speaking communities in those places in the past? Of course! But today, there are surely more Greek speakers in Queens than there are in all of those places put together. Heck, there were also Greek communities in Massalia (Marseille), Libya, Croatia, and Spain.

So what exactly is "native to" supposed to mean? --Macrakis (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess that "native to" roughly refers to places where a language is spoken by people who are not recent immigrants/settlers. Especially when they use local dialects of the language. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are still some native Greek-speakers in Italy. Namely, the Griko people who number about 80,000. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a few. According to our source in Griko people, "only about one-third [of 46,000] still speak Greek", mostly elderly. So, sadly, a small and dying community. --Macrakis (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Greek alphabet has been used for over 2600 years

Even though the statement is true, a century should be added to the figure (i.e. 2700), as the oldest known inscription is arguably the Dipylon gate inscription which dates back to the 8th century.. Gerasimos III (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerasimos III: Actually, the earliest attested Greek alphabet is arguably the Fayum alphabet, which was inscribed on four copper plaques. As Nino Luraghi writes in chapter "3. Sounds, Signs, and Boundaries: Perspectives on Early Greek Alphabetic Writing" of "The Early Greek Alphabets: Origin, Diffusion, Uses" (2021); p. 34:

• Both the nature and the date of these objects are in doubt. The absence of the supplementals and even of a separate letter for /u/ seems to put the alphabets before every documented Greek inscription, pointing to a date at the latest in the first half of the eighth century, or possibly late in the ninth.

In any case, i updated the lede by changing the phrase "for over 2,600 years", to "for approximately 2,800 years" instead, and included two relevant sources. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

References