Portal talk:Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is for the Portal about Greece. Ensure this portal's details are listed in the Portal directory. Discussion should centre on improving the Portal. Content disputes should take place on the appropriate article's talk page. For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals.

This portal has been identified as having a featured counter-part at the French language Wikipedia. You may be able to improve this article with information from fr:Portail:Hellenopedia.

I didn't create this according to procedue -- which I was unaware of at the time -- I just copied and pasted code from the Polish Wikiportal and modified it to suit my purposes here. Hopefully that hasn't caused too many problems! --Jpbrenna 9 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)

195.97.49.114 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)I saw in the 1st paragraph of this portal and i copy-write the sentence It has land boundaries with Bulgaria, the Republic of Macedonia, and Albania to the north; and with Turkey to the east. It says 'Republic of Macedonia' and it is in GREECE portal, please can we change it to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? This is the name of the country, Greece accept for now.195.97.49.114 Martha

Contents 1 Languages 2 Languages (more) 3 Lacking Greek text 4 Featured Article

[edit] Languages

Can we get the name in the minority languages of Greece, per Portal:Republic of Macedonia?

• Bulgarnnnnnian: Гърция
• Macedonian Slavic: Грција
• Albanian: Greqia
• Turkish: Yunanistan
• Aromanian: Gârtsii

I've yet to find Arvanitika, but I will be searching... - FrancisTyers 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For Megleno-Romanian, I found "Gorc" = "Greek", so probably it should be Gorci bogdan 20:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I think that the parallel you chose is somewhat irrelevant (since a.Greece has only one official language, and b.the relative weight of a 25% minority in the portal of your example cannot compare to 1-2% minority groups in Greece), I really have no problem in including whatever language you please. By the way, there are also quite a few Filipino economic immigrants in Greece...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there are Pakistanis, Nigerians, Poles, Palestinians as immigrants in Greece...how about including the names in these languages as well? since i see that the numerical strength of a minority group does not have to do anything with that, i suggest to include in Portal:United Kingdom the name of the country in the about 200 (or more?) minority groups that exist there!;-) --Hectorian 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And after that, I suggest we move the articles to wictionary... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

IML, NIML. - FrancisTyers 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that. I don't believe that any non-indigenous minority language should be included here, only indigenous minority languages. I would recommend the same for the UK Portal, viz. Y Deyrnas Unedig, An Rìoghachd Aonaichte, Rywvaneth Unys, An Ríocht Aontaithe, Unitit Kinrick. I would add Romani and possibly Ulster Scots too, but I'm not sure of the translations. - FrancisTyers 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify further: Who do you consider indigenous? How long does it take for a group to become indigenous? What is the appropriate proportion of that group compared to the population, above which it is significant to mention the language?... and finally: Which languages in Greece do you consider "Indigenous Minority Languages"?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In July 1995 Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the minority Aroumanian (Vlach) community, was arrested after he distributed publications of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages which mentioned the existence of the Aroumanian language and four other minority languages in Greece (Arvanitika, Macedonian, Turkish and Pomak). The police obliged him to make a statement saying that he was Greek...

That is from [1]. So, Arvanitika, Macedonian Slavic, Turkish, Aromanian and Pomak would be good places to start. This is also the number given out by the EBLUL. - FrancisTyers 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although, in 2003, "... Greece prevented the setting-up of a Committee of the "European Bureau for Lesser-used Languages", which has E.U. support. " [2], however, today there appears to be a Greek committee. [3]- FrancisTyers 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"The NFFE considers that Greece should respect the right of some Aromanians to feel they are a separate people and to want their language taught and preserved. Just as it respects -and in fact promotes- the right of other Aromanians to feel that they are part of the Greek nation and that their "idiom" (as they call their language) need not be taught and may die out with time. Both options emanate from the right to self-identification, which is only respected in Greece in the second case. Naturally, programmes aimed at the preservation and development of Aromanian in Greece should not be impeded, but on the contrary encouraged, at least as long as there is sufficient demand for them." ... "We also ask that Greece abolish its intolerant policies towards minorities, acknowledge the presence of national and linguistic minorities, sign and ratify the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which it signed in 1997, and introduce the teaching of those minority languages (Aromanian, Macedonian and Romani) for which there is sufficient demand expressed." [4]

That is often quoted on pro-Vlach/Aromanian sites, e.g. http://www.vlachophiles.net/index_on_censorship.htm however quoting them would be wrong as they are extremely biased, although the "It's not Greek enough for them" made me laugh :)) As far as I am aware the NFFE (non-operational as of 2001) is a non-partisan third party source. Man, I almost feel a Languages of Greece article coming on ;) - FrancisTyers 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Fran. I'll re-paste the question you didn't answer:

What is the appropriate proportion of that group compared to the population, above which it is significant to mention the language?

(a)Just 2 people (one wouldn't have who to talk with)

(b)Less than 1%

(c) 1% - 5%

(d) 5% - 10%

(e)10% - 20%

Please select the appropriate option.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that slightly irrelevant as we don't know the figures for number of speakers of any of these languages — we have estimates, but all the sources are biased — e.g. for Macedonian language between 10,000 (0.09%) and 180,180 (1.6%). Having said that Romansch is spoken by under 1% of Switzerlands population, we'd really have to go with precedent I think, I'm not just going to pull a percentage out of my figurative "hat". The Welsh language is spoken by around 1% of the UK population. They call them minority languages for a reason ;) - FrancisTyers 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant? I'll give you a list of what I think is irrelevant:

1. Irrelevant is including in the article intro, languages that have no source (or highly disputed source) for the population by which they are spoken.
2. Irrelevant is also assuming that all of this alleged population actually speaks the language.
3. Irrelevant is further assuming that the alleged population that allegedly speaks the (alleged) language, doesn't by any chance speak a somewhat Easterner close variation of that language.
4. Irrelevant is to include languages that are of none official status whatsoever.

Keep in mind I've actually met proud Vlachs, Pomaks and Slavs (I live here -you know). Most of them just happen to be extreme nationalist Greeks (you have met some examples too here in WP)! Also, an extremely minuscule proportion of them, speaks just a few words of the respective languages. Finally, for the particular language of Slavomacedonian, most of the speakers consider it of Bulgarian origin. Now if there are 5 or 6 people that feel they are oppressed, then I am with them: They shouldn't be. But, that doesn't mean we will include their views on their languages in the intro of an article. Does it?

Now for the Turks, I still feel they are quite few for this also (plus their language is officially ...unofficial).

Given the above, I think the recent additions are just ...amusing. As you know, I a fan of languages (no, not to the extent of seeing them as the most important thing in an article, deserving to be included in the intro) but I find this rediculous. I won't revert, I'll just continue laughing... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, for the particular language of Slavomacedonian, most of the speakers consider it of Bulgarian origin.

Do you have a non-partisan third-party reliable source that suggest this. Regarding the rest, the same applies for Portal:Republic of Macedonia. To be honest, one might consider it farcical to include them all, but then the same applies for the Portal:Republic of Macedonia, none of the languages mentioned are co-official with respect to the Macedonian language. This is a different situation from Portal:Switzerland as all languages are co-official there.

Also, an extremely minuscule proportion of them, speaks just a few words of the respective languages.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, are you trying to say most speak only a few words, or most speak mostly more than a few words? Whichever it is I'd be very interested to see non-partisan third-party reliable sources that report this (either way) as I'm not aware of any.

Regarding the rest, meh, irrelevant. - FrancisTyers

As I said, I like languages. As I also said, the above are personal experience from personal contact with members of these minorities (which you 've experienced too, but can still consider them "partisan").

Your sources claim 10-30,000, an irrational estimation based on the 7,000 votes of Rainbow Party (out of which 2/3ds were in irrelevant places like ...Crete).

Now if you consider proportion differences between Greece (0.?%) and fYRoM (one out of four living souls) being ,"meh, irrelevant", you can go on thinking you are NPOV in this.

Naturally, officiality should not matter if something is a fact. So, I don't compare the four official languages of Switzerland you mentioned, with Albanian in fYRoM, in terms of officiality, but I compare them in terms of frequency. Being four, means that at least one of them will be less than 25%, yet thay are all four mentioned! But if you want to continue this reasoning, since you decided to compare official status of talks in Parliament, in Ministries, in whole perfectures etc in fYRoM with the officiality of whichever of these languages in Greece, then you must check wiktionary:official and increase your vocabulary.

I'll just leave the article as it is (because I like languages) and keep laughing (because I like good humor)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't my sources, those are your sources, well the sources over at Minority groups in Greece. My sources put the number at ~100,000. It is NPOV, although to be fair I think it may be a slight violation of undue weight ;) You replied before I had a chance to emote after that "meh, irrelevant" comment, understand in retrospect that it was in good humour :) I told you, Romansch is spoken by under 1% of the population, but is still an "official" language. Albanian does not compare as IIRC it is only an "official language of communication" in regions where it is spoken by over 20% of the population, ergo it is not an "official language" for the whole country. It would be as silly as having Welsh on the UK page, which is there, but only because I love languages and I put it there. I expect it will be removed presently. And no these languages are not official in Greece, I can't think why — maybe you should start a campaign — but hey, you get anywhere near the Turks in these stakes. Come to think about it, do we have a Portal:United States — I don't see any español ;) - FrancisTyers 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Q1.Do you agree or disagree that officiality should be a reason for inclusion in the intro?

• If you agree, then compare official status of other languages in Greece to official status of Albanian in fYRoM.
• If you disagree then read next question:

Q2.Do you agree or disagree that frequency is the most WP:NPOV criterion for inclusion in the intro?

• If you agree then 25% is 26 times more than your 0.9% (100 thousand over 11 million) and 100 times more than 0.2% (10-30 thousand over 11 million). So, according to you, I have 26 times more arguments than you, and according to me 100!
• If you disagree then go back to question 1 and agree to that one.

If you still disagree, then I will continue LMTO... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you the same questions. If you think officiality is important then don't include them. Frequency is not important — Irish is the language of the republic in Ireland yet spoken fluently by a decreasing minority of the population. - FrancisTyers 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments about all the above in this section (sorry, i was not at home all day...):

• The case about the Aromanian language and the arrested guy, and all that crap, is simply of no importance. as an Aromanian, i have to say that there is not(and nor has ever been) any sort of persecution of the aromanians in Greece. i can speak aromanian any time and at any place i want. secondly, the former President of Greece, Stefanopoulos, publicly asked from the aromanians not to let their language die. Lastly, the current President of Greece, Papoulias, is an aromanian himself. furthermore, the aromanians have always been bilingual, learning greek and aromanian at the same time, while been babies! so, any attempt to 'create' a linguistic minority is of non existence (maybe better we would say 'half linguistic minority...LOL').
• I think that in this Portal, as maybe in other portals as well, we should list the name of the country in the languages that have a formal usage, an official recognition, or are spoken by a large percentange of the population (this is yet to be defined): for example, Romansh should be listed in portal:switzerland, for it is an official language(although spoken by only 1%), kurdish in portal:turkey cause it is spoken by at least 15% of the population, albanian in portal:republic of macedonia cause of an as high as 25% speakers, Breton in portal:france for the regional formal usage, and so on...
• In the case of this portal, no other language has the potential to have the name in this one here: no other language has more than 1% speakers in greece, no other language is aboriginal (or perceeding Greek) in greece, no other language (from those that some claim as minority languages, has monolingual of first language speakers (aromanian, arvanitic, etc are used by people who have learnt them at the same time and use them as much as greek). --Hectorian 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Brief reply; 1. Arresting people for giving out leaflets isn't normally considered "crap" — hell I don't even think they do that in France. 2. Can you use Aromanian to address a court? — Kurds can speak Kurdish anytime any place they want in Turkey. 3. There are many Kurds in positions in the Turkish government, one of the presidents was partly-Kurdish Turgut Özal. 4. Funny you should use a lot of the arguments that the Turks use... and yes there are plenty of Kurds who are happy Turks. 5. Breton has no regional formal usage in France, "French is the language of the Republic", I've mentioned before that in this respect the French suck. Why doesn't Greece sign and ratify the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages and ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities? - FrancisTyers 10:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Officiality is important, but actuality is MORE important. Anything else is against Wikipedia policies, not to mention a blatant discrimination against people who actually speak those languages in SIGNIFICANT proportions.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're the arbiter of what is significant? - FrancisTyers 10:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Officiality is more important than fact in this encyclopedia? Ok then, let's rename "Republic of Macedonia" to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is the official United Nations appellation... But no, that wouldn't help being factually correct, would it? Fran, I am really starting loose my temper with your apparent double standards! You want to include languages in Portal:Greece that are neither official nor frequent and exclude a language (Albanian) from "Portal:Republic of Macedonia" which is both (partly?) official and extremely frequent! Man!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed the UN before. See conversation on Portal:Republic of Macedonia, all it took was one phrase, Ohrid Agreement, why you couldn't find it before I don't know! Again, you misrepresent my position, I did not object to the inclusion of Albanian, provided it was shown that it was an official language on the same grounding as Macedonian. In fact, I didn't mind it being included at all, as can be seen from the talk page, but rather if it was included, all the other languages which have similar recognition should be included. Your mischaracterisation of my arguments is getting tedious, but I'm sure you don't intend it, so I forgive you :)) By the way, see the test at work: [5] ;) - FrancisTyers 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And the continuous effort of Francis to piss off Greeks goes on and on. Hectorian told you he's a Greek Aromanian. He feels like every other Aromanian I know, proud to be Greek AND proud to be Aromanian, the first being an ethnic distinction, the second being a reference to his cultural background. All Aromanians are insulted if they are characterised as something else than Greeks. They are like the Pontians, an integral cultural sub-group of Greece. This (as is the case with most such recent inventions) is a non-issue. --   Avg    09:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no one can speak these languages. It's not like Welsh in the UK and Kurdish in Turkey where there clearly are people who can speak the languages. Assuming Arvanitic, Aromanian etc were made official, a) there would be a hunt to find speakers - something very hard, b) the languages would have to be standardized (I don't know about Aromanian, but in the case of Arvanitic, many dialects are mutually unintelligible), c) people would have to learn the languages as there are no native speakers of an age to work as translators (the entire point of it is lost at this point), it would be like suddenly deciding to make Esperanto (a language with no native speakers) official in the UK or give it some lesser degree of recognition. The popular image given by the whiny human rights activists that there are oppressed minority language communities is silly; in reality, only isolated individuals can speak these languages fluently. Not to mention that such treatment would draw a distinction between these isolated individuals and everyone else - something they have made clear they don’t want. Telex 10:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! "It's not like Welsh in the UK and Kurdish in Turkey where there clearly are people who can speak the languages." — many dialects of many minority languages (where there was not a standardised language for a long time) are mutually unintelligible, viz. Irish "The differences between dialects are considerable, and have led to recurrent difficulties in defining standard Irish.", Welsh, Basque etc. And yeah, those people campaigning for human rights really are a whiny nuisance, it would be much better if they just left it alone. There is nothing to see here, move along. - FrancisTyers 11:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Believe me, I know Arvanites and the only one I know who can speak the language fluently is over eighty - me, I just know words. What is the point in recognizing a language spoken almost exclusively in old people's homes, especially considering that they all speak Greek anyway. People would have to learn Arvanitic if it were recognized. In my opinion, languages that people already know should be recognized. Telex 11:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the differences between Aromanian dialects are small, AFAIK. And if one tries to avoid some Greek borrowings, it can be intelligible even by speakers of standard Romanian. :-) bogdan 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to talk with Romanians, using Aromanian... it was a disaster! apart from a couple of words that they understood, everything else 'was Greek to them':) --Hectorian 14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hector, according to Francis above, you can be using official or factual interchangeably as they suit your purposes. So take your pick and act accordingly in this and the other portal...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See what EPA said here first. Telex 21:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw E Pluribus Anthony's edit summary, but don't really need it (there are more comments above). I have invited all involved users in this. 4 or 5 editors here, apparently can't come to an agreement...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis is talking according to his own POV. he prefers to see the aromanians in greece as a distinct ethnic group that is facing discrimination (lol...) and that our human rights are violated (karalol...!). he may sees my ideas as a POV of mine...i explained him in his talkpage (i got no response so far). anyway, i do not mind... he can keep his POV for himself, his page, or the talk pages. as soon as he meets aromanians in real life, he will understand that i am 100% right. he can also search on the internet (all the relevancies made linking the Basques, Bretons, Kurds, etc, are out of the question) so, no problem for me:)...--Hectorian 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah, you are misrepresenting my position. I never said simply that "the aromanians in greece are a distinct ethnic group". See below for an approximate explanation of my position without me having to resort to more typing...

"The NFFE considers that Greece should respect the right of some Aromanians to feel they are a separate people and to want their language taught and preserved. Just as it respects -and in fact promotes- the right of other Aromanians to feel that they are part of the Greek nation and that their "idiom" (as they call their language) need not be taught and may die out with time. Both options emanate from the right to self-identification, which is only respected in Greece in the second case. Naturally, programmes aimed at the preservation and development of Aromanian in Greece should not be impeded, but on the contrary encouraged, at least as long as there is sufficient demand for them." ... "We also ask that Greece abolish its intolerant policies towards minorities, acknowledge the presence of national and linguistic minorities, sign and ratify the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which it signed in 1997, and introduce the teaching of those minority languages (Aromanian, Macedonian and Romani) for which there is sufficient demand expressed." [6]

You may deny that there are "some" Aromanians who feel they are a separate people and want their language taught and preserved, but seeing as you have repeatedly made judgements on "your opinion" and not on reliable sources I'd kind of given up discussing it. I don't suppose you have any non-partisan third-party sources that state that "none of the aromanians in greece consider themselves part of a distinct ethnic group" do you? If you do, feel free to make a note on my talk page, otherwise we're both just going to be pissing in the wind. - FrancisTyers 02:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has the right of self identification, and Greece is not a country that prevents people from this right. i may be misrepresenting your position (in some cases), but in some others, u are pushing your POV... and what i mean with that: u brough that guy, Bletsas (i think) as an example for Greece's intolerance against the aromanians. i did some searching about him...: he was not trying to protect his right of self-identification, but he was trying to attract attention and supporters for his own purposes and POV. maybe u had not checked what he had done... there is no greek law preventing the opening of aromanian schools in greece. but as i said this idiom has no written form. and if someone standardizes the grammar and syntax etc, the interest of the aromanians will still be limited. if someone wants to know aromanian, he/she can (by been taught by a speaker of it-e.g.me). i guess that there are some aromanians who may feel distinct... but this does not give the right to anyone to generalize. as long as they do not form the majority (and they will never will, believe me) they will get the attention they should. since the vast majority of the aromanians do not want aromanian to be listed in the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, Greece will not sign. this is called democracy. those who want to feel different, are free to do so, and they may continue doing that, as long as they do that according to the laws.--Hectorian 02:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source in Romanian for what he did, my Romanian isn't great, but maybe you can help me fill in the gaps:

Sotiris Bletsas a fost arestat în 1995 de autorităţile greceşti pentru vina de a fi difuzat la o întrunire a aromânilor din Grecia un raport oficial al Biroului european al cărui membru este. Acest document oficial al Biroului european pentru limbi mai puţin folosite menţiona faptul că în Grecia se mai vorbesc încă 5 limbi minoritare, printre care şi aromâna.

Sotiris Bletsas was arrested in 1995 by the Greek authorities for being guilty in giving out at a meeting of Aromanians in Greece an official report by the European Bureau for ? ?. This official document of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages mentioned the fact that in Greece there are spoken 5 minority languages, one of which is Aromanian.

It goes on to say: Aceasta doar pentru "vina" de a fi difuzat un document al Uniunii Europene.

And only for the "guilt" of having giving out a document from the European Union

I'd translate the rest, but I think you get the idea. Of course the Romanians are horribly biased!

The charges were based on the fact that, in July 1995, he had distributed in an Aromanian festival a publication of the European Union's (EU) semi-official European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL - in which Bletsas was the Greek "observer"), which mentioned the minority languages in Greece (Aromanian, Arvanite, Macedonian, Pomak, Turkish) and in the other EU member states. His prosecution was triggered by charges pressed by conservative New Democracy Deputy Eugene Haitidis and, according to Bletsas, the prosecution's witnesses included the Aromanian mayor of Prosotsani (Northern Greece). The latter considered the reference to the Vlach language as a minority language defamatory to the Vlachs. Bletsas appealed the sentence and was set free pending the appeal. GHM considers the verdict obscurantist and a flagrant violation of freedom of expression. The organisation wonders why the Greek authorities have not prosecuted the authors of the publication, the EU and EBLUL, and/or those making it widely available in Greece, which include the EU delegation in Athens.

I think that is from Greek Helsinki, and we know how reliable they are!

Regarding freedom of expression, the protracted trial of Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aroumanian Culture, also raised concern. The legal case of Bletsas has been postponed a number of times. In 1995, Bletsas was indicted for distributing a publication of the European Union's Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (in which Sotiris Bletsas was the Greek "observer") which mentioned minority languages in Greece. The prosecution for dissemination of false information, article 191 of the penal code, was triggered by charges laid down by the deputy Eugene Haitidis of the party of New Democracy. During the trial, the prosecution's witnesses included the leader of the Panhellenic Union of Vlach Associations. They considered the reference to the Vlach language as a minority language defamatory to the Valchs. The trial was last postponed.

Another one from the GH, this time quoted by the IPI.

Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aroumanian (Vlach) Culture, was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, suspended for three years, and a fine for distributing a leaflet on minority languages at a Vlach festival in northern Greece over five years ago. The court said the leaflet could cause "fear and anxiety among citizens". The leaflet, in the English language, was published by the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages and had been financed by the European Commission. It listed some 40 minority languages spoken in Europe and referred to Aroumanian as one of the minority languages spoken in certain regions of Greece.

From those liberal whackos at Amnesty International who probably got it from GH.

In February Sotiris Bletsas, a Vlach activist, was convicted of disseminating false information under Article 191 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and a $1,351 (500,000 drachma) fine. In 1995 at a Vlach festival Bletsas distributed a publication of the Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages in Europe that mentioned the minority languages in Greece. Her conviction was reversed on appeal in December.

US DoS, who are probably just campaigning against the ethnic-homogeneity of the Hellenic Republic. Pretty funny because they got the gender wrong :))

"i did some searching about him...: he was not trying to protect his right of self-identification, but he was trying to attract attention and supporters for his own purposes and POV." — trying to attract attention by distributing a leaflet is against the law now? Again, you assert yourself without providing sources. I'm not saying that Greece is intolerant against Aromanians in general, I'm saying that Greece is sometimes intolerant towards Aromanians who publically express a non-Greek ethnic identity, and that it is more likely to be intolerant towards people from indigenous minority groups who express non-Greek ethnic identities. Well, pot sa discut, dar ma plictiseste acum... and as I said, my Romanian is pretty bad so you might want to check the translation. - FrancisTyers 03:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good! so u did some searching (weather this was done before, or just 3 hours ago...). firstly, i cannot help u with Romanian, cause i do not have a clue. but i know fluently aromanian and latin (thanks to my studies), so, i have got the whole idea:)...

Maybe that guy expressed his opinion in the same Vlach festival, that Papoulias was there (1995) (see your talk, i was there too). Secondly, do u really believe that he was convicted for this reason? cause he made public a document of the EU? come on! the EU documents are published in the Newspaper of Government (the leaflet on which every law and official statement is published, and of which every single greek citizen should be aware of..., in order not to find his/herself in trouble!)

u said trying to attract attention by distributing a leaflet is against the law now?: depends on what u say on that. if i was distributing a leaflet in the UK, asking from people to demolish the Buckingham Palace, i would be arrested as well...

lastly, Greece has never been intolerant towards the aromanians, cause the aromanians in general, never expressed a non greek identity (i have thousands of examples to tell u...)

what i am saying (and i will continue to say as long as i live) is to follow the democratic theories! everyone will get the acceptance he deserves, according to the majority and to the historical records. that's my POV, this is what the sources i have fould say. if there is a group of 100-200 aromanians in greece who say that they are not greeks, they should be protected, but they should not present themselves are speaking in behalf of the rest of us... I guess u got my point (it is like Blair talking on behalf of all the british-moreover, he, at least, is elected!!!) --Hectorian 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aromanians never expressed a non-Greek identity exactly because the Greek society is very intolerant with "foreigners". The same thing is true about the Arvanits. bogdan 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's prolonged assimilation and religion - see this comment. Telex 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Telex in general. bogdan, the greek society was never intolerant with the "foreigners" (as u say) vlachs and arvanites, cause simply, both of them have always been part of the greek society, and so had no reason to express a non-greek ethnic identity... --Hectorian 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

*Ahem*.

"Anti-Semitism in Greece occurs not only among extreme rightists and leftists. It is embedded in Greek mainstream society and manifests itself in religious contexts, education, politics and the media. Jews are often not perceived as true Greeks, although many families have lived there since the 15th century."

"A Eurobarometer survey in the year 2000 showed Greece to have the highest degree of xenophobia in the European Union."

etc. http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-23.htm bogdan 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FracisTyers, what makes you believe "the Romanians are extremely biased"? Just because they wouldn't swallow official Greek propaganda (which Hectorian and NikoSilver have been feeding you here)? I mean, we can listen to Greek propaganda, saying they have no ethnic minorities (very reasonable), but the other side of the story is "biased"? You talk about "liberal wackos" at Amnesty International, and call Greek Helsinki "unreliable"? Man, what's reliable to you?

On a side note, may I remind you that Romania is one of the most tolerant country in the Balkans? We respect our minorities, unlike others - check out how many of them we have.

Here are two third party sources for you: 1) The Ethnicity of Aromanians aftter 1990: the identity of a Minority that Behaves like the Majority, in Ethnologia Balkanica 6, Munchen, Sofia, New York 2002 and 2) Max D. Peyfuss: Die Aromunische Frage. Ihre Entwicklung von den Ursprungen bis zum Frieden von Bukarest (1913) und die Haltung Osterreich-Ungarns. Wiener Arvhic fur Geschichte des Slawentums und Osteuropas, Vienna 1974, 21. and an older one, from the time when Greek propaganda was less efficient: 3) Die nationale Bewegung unter den Aromunen (Rumanen der Turkei) in Globus 71, Heft 4, Braunschweig 1897. Note *all* the authors are German, so they don't have reasons to be biased. I took these from a collection of Thede Kahl's work that was published in Romania: Thede Kahl - "Istoria aromânilor", Bucureşti, Tritonic, 2005, ISBN 973-733-041-2. Please, do some research. --Phormion 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages (more)

I added a ^___^ heading, coz it was getting long to edit. The topic is the same. Fran, there are no non-partisan sources. There was no reason for such sources to exist. All Hector and me say (and the other greek users over at Talk:Arvanites and the like) is that most of these guys feel Greek. Isn't it kinda strange that there hasn't been not even ONE editor from Greece, stating that he is an oppressed Vlach? (Oooops! I hope I didn't just put a WP:BEAN up my nose and give ideas for WP:SOCKS...) Anyway, sincerely, I've never met one here. On the contrary, I find Vlachs (and Slavs and Arvanite) to be more Greeks than us Greeks! If I knew ONE that feels otherwise, I'd tell you. Really. By the way, did you check User:Makedonas's userpage? You'll be enlightened, regarding how such minorities (???) feel about their Greekness! Ofcourse that would fall under the partisan sources category, according to your definition... :-) :-> :-} :-]

On the other hand, you are right. Maybe Greece over-reacted on this, maybe the Aromanian Greek President of the Hellenic Republic and his peers should just ROFLMAO... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Apostolos Margaritis claims to be a non Greek oppressed Aromanian. Telex 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Checkuser him, quickly! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking Greek text

Speakers of Greek please keep a look at Category:Lacking Greek text

done.--Michkalas 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Ok, now for something less controversial than Arvanitikes leaflets. How do we decide on the Featured Article, besides the obvious: Arvanites? Shall we vote? What procedures shall we put in place?Argos'Dad 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

FAs are decided by the FAC page not national portals and this specific article is faaaaaaaar away form FA status.--Yannismarou 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)