User talk:Charonite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


                                                           - Macrakis -

Charonite, I'd appreciate it if you'd join the discussion on the Greeks Talk page rather than just restoring's edits. Obviously I think they're bad edits, and you think they're good edits -- the way to resolve this isn't an edit war, but a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. --Macrakis 16:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

                                                          - Charonite -

It seems to me that the discussion in the Talk page is a futile one being that the history of the Greeks is not being shown in full honesty. Anything that is discussed about the Greeks that supports their heritage is automatically deemed as nationalist tripe. However, I do not care if whatever is written by is used by Greek nationalists or not. I care about historical honesty and so far the Greeks have been denied their right to express their history honestly being that many people want to see many revisions in Greek history and identity to occur that are untrue. Macrakis, you may be an intelligent linguist, but you are not a very good historian. I agree with when it comes to the history of Greece and Greek identity. If I find something that does not make sense, then for the sake of historical honesty I will revise it. Here are my reasons why I support the edits made by pertaining to Greek history and identity.

The latest edits to this page were by and were signed Charonite. It seems likely that you are the same person (though forgery is theoretically possible). So why in the above do you talk as though you are different? So much for "honesty". --Macrakis 15:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Before you start, spare me your "ah-ha, I've got you" rhetoric. Yes, and Charonite are the same person. It was about time someone picked up the breadcrumbs I have been leaving here. Congratulations Macrakis, you passed the test. Indeed I am an honest human being, but on the Internet, I test all areas by creating two or more personas before I maintain one stable persona and contribute. This is not the first place I have done this. In many forums on the Internet, I have used many "tests" to gauge the reactions of users and to ascertain the "rules" of the area. So far, my tests have uncovered the fact that Wikipedia has a bias against any information from a nationalist perspective (even if the information is true). Again, I only do this to gauge the reactions of other users pertaining to the content I put on a consistent basis. Forgive me for the slight nuisance my first persona,, developed. However, as you question the extent of my "honesty" remember that this confession is a facet of my honesty for I am consistent with maintaining my honor code. Whether you believe me or not (I know you will not believe me), I am a dualistic person and need to create personas in order to better express the facets of my existence that are necessary for the sake of expression. Thank you for your time. Of course, you will continue to ban me from editing the articles about Greece and the Greeks. Fine. Enjoy doing so. However, even was not cruel in the language he used in his edits. He, like Charonite, have no intention of making anyone miserable. Yet, if the truth hurts people, then it is they who should be denied the right to edit here not me. If you want me to leave, then fine. I shall do so. All you have to do is ask properly and kindly and it shall be done. Will I return? Probably. Probably not. I learned a lot while editing here, did you? No? Too bad. Yes? That's great. My purpose is, to some extent, complete here. I feel that more work needs to be done. However, I can sense people here hate me already. Again, congratulations Macrakis. For a person who lacks the flexible savviness needed to understand history, you are very intelligent. Bye, for now. I have other "pressing" matters to attend to. Just keep in mind that just because I used my "personas test" that my words and contributions should not be considered. Of course, you will probably use the "dishonesty card" against me to debunk whatever truthful statements are needed to make the articles here in Wikipedia accurate. Charonite May 4, 2005 3:13 P.M. EST
I don't have the power to ban anyone from editing. I have not asked you to leave because I have hoped that you could become a constructive contributor. If you recall, my very first message to you was asking you to join the discussion. I won't ask you, even now, to leave. I will ask you to recognize that your point of view is not the only one worth reporting. --Macrakis 01:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
True. Very nice of you indeed. Keep in mind, however, that even though my point of view is not the only one worth reporting, you should be cognizant of the difference between a right point of view and a wrong point of view. If you want to argue about the relativity that exists with the concepts of "right" and "wrong," then have fun. However, when it comes to Greek history, I see my "point of view" as correct and all others that stray from how Greek historical events occurred to be wrong. I have read and analyzed a plethora of data from different points of view and thus far, they do not portray Greek history and identity correctly. You want "fairness" of opinion. Fine. However, "fairness" of opinion does not encompass errors of fact or concepts unreasonably explained. With Greek history and identity, either a person describing both is right or is wrong in how he/she portrays both. Forgive me if this sounds too "narrow-minded," but I have allowed for other points of view to express themselves constantly, and unfortunatley nothing good came out of it in the end. Charonite May 6, 2005 2:18 A.M. EST

1. The term "omothriskon" is an ancient Greek word. If you do not believe me, then look it up in a classical Greek dictionary.

I did. It isn't. As for "omoaimon", the correct form (in Herodotus) is "omaimon". --Macrakis 16:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I still think that "omothriskon" should still be placed in the article. Whatever. Just fix the problems and be done with it. --Charonite May 2, 2005 1:54 P.M. EST
Could I ask where Charonite found "omothriskon"? I can't find it it in any ancient-Greek dictionaries either, but I assume that he didn't just make up finding it, so his explanation would be useful. I'd be interested, certainly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though the term "omothriskon" is not found in an ancient Greek dictionary, its existence and usage today indicates the fact that all ancient Greek tribes and civilizations were deeply religious and shared the same religion.
I don't understand how its existence and usage today proves anything about the past. Just for the record: according to Babiniotis and Andriotis (modern Greek dictionaries), it's Hellenistic, i.e. not used in Herodotus etc. --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Hellenistic, but still within the framework of "ancient times." Even if the word "omothriskon" came last in line as a term that describes better the definitive religious characteristic of Greeks, it still comes from the ancient era of Greek history, Hellenic or Hellenistic. Does not matter. I suggest that the three words be shown in the article. Also, one should write next to the word its origins (i.e. "omaimon" - from Herodotus or something of the sort). Whatever. Just simply put the words in or I will end up doing it. People need to know how the Greeks called their "common ancestry," "common religion," and "common language" in their ancient native tongue. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:38 A.M. EST
If indeed there is no linguistic evidence in ancient times for the term "omothriskon," then fine. No skin off my nose. However, many ancient Greek authors did allude to the concept of a "common religion" as they questioned the futility of the civil wars engaged between numerous Greek tribes (including the wars fought between the Spartans and the Athenians during the Peloponnesian Wars).
Quite so. And in fact you will note that in my edits, I preserved the concept of common religion, only removing the anachronistic word. --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I know that you "preserved" the concept of a common religion. However, if the word "omothriskon" is so "anachronistic," then why bother telling me that its origins come from the Hellenistic period of Greek history? For God's sake, "anachronistic" or not, just put the three words in the article. You have no idea how helpful it will be to future readers of the article. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:41 A.M. EST
Helpful in what way? --Macrakis 01:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though the word "omothriskon" does not exist in an ancient Greek dictionary, the word "thriskos" (religious) does exist. The term "omothen" (from the same place or origin) also exists. There is a possiblity that the ancient Greek religion came from one source (perhaps from the proto-Greek Pelasgians or from the Selloi) and spread to other areas of Greece where eventually one sees "omothen" mixed with "thriskos" to create "omothriskon." This may sound like conjecture, which is fine by me. However, Greek religion was an essential part of Greek life and was sort of a requirement if Greek tribes wanted to attend the Olympics. Not only did Greeks had to be ethnic/racial Greeks and speak the Hellenic language, but they also had to worship the same 12 Olympian gods and goddesses. I could be right and I could be wrong. In case you disagree with me Mel Etitis, remember that it was you who asked for an explanation and all I did was deliver. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. I do appreciate in your sudden interest in the three (and not two as many state) characteristics that have defined Greeks and still define Greeks to this day. Charonite May 3, 2005 10:52 P.M. EST

2. Isocrates indeed believed more in Greek culture than in Greek common ancestry. However, the Greek people still maintained the three important characteristics that defined them. Greeks are dualistic in that on the one hand are flexible and capable of adapting to changes in their environment, and on the other hand are very stubborn in maintaining their ethnic, cultural, racial, linguistic, and religious identity.

Religious? You mean you still worship the 12 gods? "Racial"? You mean that the Arvanites and the Vlachoi and the Slavs who have been hellenized are not Greek? Cultural? What about all those Slavic and Albanian and Vlach and Turkish folk dances, food, folk costumes, and vocabulary? --Macrakis 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The Arvanites and the Vlachs were not hellenized. They were Hellenes from the beginning.
Huh? --Macrakis 14:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The Arvanites and the Vlachs were not hellenized. They were Hellenes from the beginning.
Ah! That explains everything. --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The Slavs of medieval times were not "hellenized" (or Rhomaionized) in the sense that they were assimilated and turned into Rhomaions. Instead, they were educated so as to become a less barbaric people. If they were truly assimilated, then Bulgaria and other Slavic countries in the Balkans would not exist today. The only "Slavs" the Greeks "assimilated" were the Slavophones who were bi-lingual ethnic Greeks (spoke both Greek and Slavic or a mish-mash of both).
And by curious coincidence, there were no bi-lingual ethnic Slavs speaking both Greek and Slavic. I see. --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Slavs are newcomers to the Balkans. Moreover, their language, before and after the advent of the Cyrillic alphabet, is not as sophisticated as the Greek language. No, do not assume that I am not proclaiming Greek linguistic superiority over other "inferior" peoples. All I am saying is that the Slavs could have learned Greek, but in the end maintained their own language due to their natural conservatism and their cognizance of the fact that their language was a bit easier to learn than Greek. However, I could be wrong in this case for all I know. Indeed, there is a possibility of ethnic Slavs speaking both Greek and Slavic. However, this is where the ethno-religious identity comes in. If a "Slav" is a member of the ethno-religious institution called the Greek Orthodox Church, then that "Slav" is in fact an ethnic Greek. In fact, the "Slav" will tell you that he/she is an ethnic Greek even if you assume that based on his language that he was Slavic. I speak perfect English (American), Greek, Spanish and a little German. Does that mean that my background is a mix and match of four different cultures? The answer is no. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:48 A.M. EST
As for the Albanians and Turks, they may have been influenced by Greek culture, but that does not make them Greeks. Yes, there is a large population of Turks that are in fact ex-Byzantine Greeks from centuries ago. However, today Turks are far from being called Greeks. Charonite May 3, 2005 7:20 A.M. EST
But following your argument about Vlachs and Arvanites above, if those ex-Byzantine Greeks who are now Turks decided to embrace their Greekness and immigrate to Greece as true Greeks who had 'forgotten' their language, you would embrace them as brothers. Sounds good. --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no. The possibility of ex-Byzantine Turks embracing their Greekness is zero to none. After centuries of mixing, whatever Greek element (regardless of how strong it is in certain areas of Turkey) exists in Anatolia is merged with everything else the Ottomans assimilated. Let us see, the Turks (including the ex-Byzantine ones) would be a mixture of Greek, Armenian, Persian, Arabic, Jewish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Russian,

Egyptian, Assyrian, North African (i.e. Berber), Georgian, etc. Of course, someone will respond to this and say that Greeks are a mixture of Slavs, Turks, blah, blah, blah. Of course, one cannot say such things about the Greeks without having read and understood Greek history and the Greek mentality maintained throughout the centuries. The only Greeks left in Turkey are in the low thousands probably scattered about Anatolia. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:56 A.M. EST

The Slavs of medieval times were not "hellenized" (or Rhomaionized) in the sense that they were assimilated and turned into Rhomaions. Instead, they were educated so as to become a less barbaric people. If they were truly assimilated, then Bulgaria and other Slavic countries in the Balkans would not exist today. The only "Slavs" the Greeks "assimilated" were the Slavophones who were bi-lingual ethnic Greeks (spoke both Greek and Slavic or a mish-mash of both).
And how did they come to speak both? --Macrakis 14:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The Cyrillic alphabet was created specifically to help distinguish Slavs from Greeks.
Very clever! --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:58 A.M. EST
When the Ottomans arrived and brought forth their imperial yoke over southeastern Europe, Greeks learned different languages in order to trade with foreigners within the Ottoman Empire, as well as confuse the Ottomans about who was Greek and who was not. The Ottomans could not pick out a Greek from the street unless they somehow understood the language to an extent.
Very clever! I am impressed! --Macrakis 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. Charonite May 4, 2005 10:59 A.M. EST
However, the Greeks would combine their native tongue with foreign languages in order to survive and at the same time preserve their identity (and make themselves somewhat identifiable by their fellow brethren). You may find this explanation as another "paramythi," but Ottoman rule was harsh and survival was of the utmost importance to the Greeks. If learning different languages meant that you could live another day, then you would do it. Whether or not you believe me is up to you. This is what the Greeks (living in the plains and certain islands mind you) had to do in order to survive daily life under the Ottomans. Charonite May 3, 2005 5:59 P.M. EST
As for the Albanians and Turks, they may have been influenced by Greek culture, but that does not make them Greeks.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here. That it is not possible for a 15th century Albanian to have a 20th century descendent who is completely Greek? --Macrakis 14:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Unless of course the "Albanian" was in fact an ethnic Greek from the Orthodox Christian minority living in southern Albania. The Albanians converted to Islam and supported the Ottomans. They were called "tourkalvanoi" by the Greeks for that reason. Charonite May 3, 2005 6:03 P.M. EST
Yes, there is a large population of Turks that are in fact ex-Byzantine Greeks from centuries ago. However, today Turks are far from being called Greeks. Charonite May 3, 2005 7:20 A.M. EST

3. It is foolish to believe that just because both Greeks and non-Greeks spoke the same Hellenic language, that the ethnic, cultural, racial, and national distinctions between peoples living in Alexander's Empire and the Byzantine Empire, with the Rhomaic language, (prior to the empire's territorial loss of Syria, Judea/Palestine, and other territories outside of Greece, Illyricum, Moesia, Anatolia, and Cyprus) suddenly disappeared.

4. Indeed the term "Hellenic" fell out of favor when the Greeks converted to Christianity and the Byzantine Empire came into existence. To be called an "Hellene" in Byzantine times meant that a person was a Greek pagan. The term that replaced the word "Hellene" was "Rhomaion." Again, because of the dualistic nature of the Greeks, the term "Rhomaion" is correct in's statement: "This new ethno-religious word was specifically directed toward ethnic/racial Greeks who were citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire and were members of the Greek Orthodox Church."

Are you claiming that Armenians, etc. in the Byzantine (i.e. Roman) empire did not call themselves Romans (Rhomaii)? --Macrakis 16:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The Armenians called themselves Armenians and the state of Armenia was a Byzantine protectorate for many centuries. Take for example the Slavs. After becoming Orthodox Christians and possessing the Cyrillic alphabet they were not called "Rhomaions." They were still called Slavs. Orthodox Slavs, but Slavs nonetheless. The term "Rhomaion" transcends the typical political connotations found in the term "Roman." Emperor Caracella in 212 A.D. may have granted all peoples living in the Old Roman Empire Roman citizenship, but people still distinguished themselves based on culture, ethnos, race, language, etc. --Charonite May 2, 2005 1:59 P.M. EST
The notion of ethnic identity as we know it today was invented in the 19th century -- see any standard history of nationalism -- I am not talking only of Greece. Projecting that notion back to the Byzantine empire is not meaningful. --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the notion of ethnic identity existed way before the 19th century. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 gave rise to the nation-state in Western Europe. The reason why many people love to trace the concept of nationalism back to the 19th century is because in that time there was a plethora of literature pertaining to the topic. However, just because a topic is not discussed often does not mean it did not exist prior to the literary discussion. Concepts can be created and distributed orally and not be written down anywhere. Charonite May 2, 2005 (user name and date placed on May 3, 2005 9:05 A.M. EST)
Yes, of course concepts can circulate without being written. But one needs some sort of evidence! And even if Westphalia gave rise to some states with more-or-less (mostly less) uniform national identity, where's the nationalist ideology to go with it? --Macrakis 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
There exist many written sources before the Treaty of Westphalia that allude to concepts of nationalism (territorial and ethnic). However, they do not discuss about the concept of nationalism as much as the documents from the 19th century. Also, nationalist ideology does not necessarily have to be shown in written documents, but can be shown through the social structures of a given community. For instance, take ancient Spartan society. Their nationalist ideology encompassed Spartan social superiority (in comparison to the Helots who were Greek slaves), as well as the phalanx mentality oriented around protecting the territorial boundaries of Sparta from invaders. To be honest, this is not the first time I had to discuss about nationalism and how it existed prior to the 19th century. I think people should start looking at nationalism outside of the 19th century box. It helps to state that a plethora of documents pertaining to nationalism came from the 19th century, but not that the 19th century was the only period in human history where nationalism was first born. Please read my post pertaining to the three historical types of nationalism. Charonite May 2, 2005 7:35 A.M. EST
Anyway, even though nationalism has many forms there are three historical types of nationalism. Ancient nationalism, medieval nationalism and modern nationalism. Ancient nationalism was simply a form of tribalism. Ethnic nationalism did exist back then, but on a more local level (in the case of the Greeks, Spartans, Athenians, Macedonians, etc.). Medieval nationalism was simply religious nationalism. Of course, there were variations to this type of nationalism. For the Greeks, who believed in the omaimon, omglosson, and (even though you dispute this term) omthriskon, being a medieval Greek meant that you had an ethno-religious identity as opposed to just simply a religious identity among masses of peoples with ethnic, cultural, linguistic, racial differences. It was exactly this type of ethno-religious nationalism that allowed the Greeks to establish the Byzantine Empire as a Greek state. Now comes modern nationalism, which is nothing more but secular nationalism whereby the separation of church and states is enforced. Before secular nationalism, the church was the state. Even though there are different faces of nationalism, there is, for historical purposes, just three. Charonite May 2, 2005 3:30 P.M. EST

I sympathize with, because there is a form of intelligent historical consistency in all of the posts written by that ISP address. Almost every day people left and right change Greek history and identity without truly knowing or understanding both. It is a very bothersome thing to have false information spreading across encyclopedias and other information databases. Also, just because states something honest that someone else does not like, it does not make his/her statements "nationalistic."

Of course, people will say upon reading this message that I am not neutral enough. However, throughout my historical research I have studied the positions and viewpoints from non-Greek sources (Western European, Turkish, Albanian, Bulgarian, Skopjean, etc.) pertaining to Greek history and identity. So far, I am unimpressed by their "contributions" to Greek history, Greek ancestry, and how Greeks today should perceive themselves and how they should perceive their ancestors. Honesty should come first and then neutrality. Some may find this as "paranoid" and "extremist," but I think that the truth is more important than neutrality. Of course, I will consistently provide intelligent contributions to Wikipedia and not use any offensive language whatsoever. Let repost. To you its "nationalist drivel," but to Greeks (and not just Greek nationalists) who want their history to be shown correctly, it is truth. --Charonite May 1, 2005 1:40 P.M. EST

You may be 'unimpressed', but NPOV requires that all reasonable points of view be represented fairly. --Macrakis 16:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but many of the so-called "reasonable" points of view pertaining to Greek history are not that reasonable. But hey, why listen to me? I am just another "evil nationalist" bent on preventing the honest truth from being shown in Wikipedia about my people and ancestors. Indeed, the years I spent studying Greek history from both Greek and non-Greek perspectives means nothing to you. Fine. If you want to see things shown in a "fair" light, then why don't you go to the article about Byzantine Emperor Basil II (976 A.D. - 1025 A.D.) and get rid of the word "Bulgarslayer" in order to be more "fair" to the Bulgarians. The Bulgarian government would love to see that happen. Charonite May 2, 2005 (user name and date placed on May 3, 2005 8:55 A.M. EST)
I see no problem with reporting the term "Voulgaroktonos". --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Good. Now we are beginning to see eye-to-eye. Charonite May 2, 2005 3:33 P.M. EST

Again Macrakis, you are an intelligent linguist, but not a very good historian. I am not saying that language does not have its place in the world. All I am trying to say is that if you want to discuss about historical events, it would be in the best interests of future generations to be as brutally honest as possible. If someone does not like the honest truth, then it is his/her problem. Honesty should come first, then neutrality.

I agree about brutal honesty. But when matters are disputed, what do you do? Do you assume that only your point of view is correct? --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Look. There are two different kinds of stubborness. The first kind is intelligent stubborness whereby a person, cognizant of his surroundings and the validity of his/her beliefs through hard evidence, maintains his/her stance on a topic of debate. The second kind is blind stubborness whereby a person maintains his/her stance on a topic of debate even if physical proof refutes his/her beliefs. In the case of the Greeks, I trust their points of view (don't worry I question them too if something is fishy), because they have been dealing with the propagandistic tirades of their neighbors for many years. For the most part, there is physical evidence (and genetic evidence if there are those who question whether or not modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the ancient Greeks) that has so far proven arguments made by Greeks as true. It is Greece's neighbors who have a hard time stomaching the truth (i.e. F.Y.R.O.M. or "Macedonia"). Charonite May 2, 2005 3:39 P.M. EST
And what about the propagandistic tirades of the Greeks? There are actually people out there who will tell you with a straight face that moussaka was invented in Greece, that Arvanites were 'genuine' Greeks who were 'forced' to speak Albanian (!), that there are no Slavic-speaking people (whatever you want to call them) in northern Greece, and other paramythia. --Macrakis 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually Macrakis the examples you stated are not part of the Greek propagandistic tirade. Statements like "Greeks reached Japan in ancient times" (believe me this statement does exist and is discussed about in many forums) are part of Greek propaganda. I do not know much about the origins of moussaka, but when I do, remind me to bring it up again in any future discussion about the history of Greek food. The Arvanites were not Albanians, because if you just simply look at the etymology of the word (you are a linguist, see for yourself), you will find that anything that ends in "-ites" means "like." So in the case of the Arvanites, they were "like Albanians" but in fact were ethnic Greeks who spoke a mixed language of Greek and Albanian. I guess you support the Albanians when it comes to the Souliots being Albanians, Alexander the Great being Albanian, Socrates being Albanian, Epirus being Albanian, Odysseus being Albanian, etc. The list goes on and on. Trust me. I have been studying history from all viewpoints for a long time. This is not the first time I am discussing about Greek history and all the propaganda generated left and right in the Balkans. If I find something in Greek history that does not fit there, believe me I will refute it. The "paramythia" you list are in fact truths Macrakis. Even the Trojan War, if read from the Iliad, would be deemed somewhat as a "paramythi." However, the Trojan War did happen. The Slavophones are the only "Slavs" that exist in Greece, because the population exchanges between Greeks in Bulgaria and Bulgarians in Greece already occurred. The Slavophones were ethnic Greeks who were bi-lingual and were a part of the ethno-religious identity of other Greek groups (Vlachs, Arvanites, etc.). Naturally, I expect from you to state that I am a blind nationalist who believes in assimilation and does not want to grant people their minority rights or something of the sort. To be frank, I despise assimilation. I hate it when I see people not being true to themselves and taking pride in their identity. Also, the Vlachs, the Arvanites, the Slavophones, the Souliots, the Sphakiots, the Maniots, the Klefts, the Armatoloi are all different Greek groups who have consistently asserted their Greekness. In short, I find your "paramythia" argument a "paramythi" in of itself. When you have read and analyzed and re-analyzed historical events with an in-depth study of social environments as much as I have, then come back and we will have another discussion about Greek history. Do not assume that by stating this that I proclaim myself to be better than you. Instead, all I am trying to say is that there is a difference between being a linguist and being a historian (or social/geopolitical analyst). If you think otherwise, then it is just merely your opinion. However, the difference is there whether you accept it or not. Charonite May 2, 2005 7:54 A.M. EST

The history of both Greece and the Greeks should be dictated by the Greeks, only because Greeks know their history a lot better than anyone else. This does not mean that Greeks are better than anyone else, but rather that Greeks have been around for a long time and deserve the right to be the first and only to tell the tale of who they are in this world past and present.

This is the crux of the matter. It is contrary to all honest scholarship to create "intellectual reservations" like this. Should all historians of Germany in the U.S. and all historians of Japan in Denmark just give up and stop doing research? And what do you do when there is a conflict? If you say along the same lines "the history of both Turkey and the Turks should be dictated by the Turks", where does that leave areas which concern both the Turks and the Greeks? Moreover, it begs the question. Who defines who is "Greek"? --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not want to necessarily see other countries cease doing research on Greek history. It is just that I am fed up with many non-Greek perspectives twisting Greek history and portraying a picture that is not true. I welcome people who respect both Greece and the Greeks to do research. However, I still stand by my claim that Greeks know their own history better than anyone else. The Turks, however, cannot make such a claim, because they are deliberately lying to themselves about their identity. Their government makes outrageous claims that are unsubstantiated by any shred of physical evidence. For instance, the Turks believe they were the first people to arrive in Anatolia in ancient times. User:Charonite May 2, 2005 (user name and date placed on May 3, 2005 9:08 A.M. EST)
This is of course nonsense, but as far as I know it is not Turkish government policy (at least not any more). But you only have to look around the Web to see equal nonsense on the Greek side, e.g. that Linear A and Phaistos Disk are Greek, when in fact they are undeciphered, and there is no good reason to believe they are Greek. (Who knows, maybe they will turn out to be Greek -- but it's simply not known.) Or that Greek was the first language and that Indo-European never existed. Our job as serious people is to eliminate nonsense regardless of where it comes from. --Macrakis 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually Macrakis, the entire Indo-European system is flawed. It was developed by a linguist and was not supported by archaelogical evidence when it was first created. Since you are a linguist and not a historian, I can see why you believe that Greeks who go against the Indo-European system are considered "propagandists." Also, new evidence of Greek being an older language than previously thought has come to light thanks to Aris Poulianos and thanks to the Dispilio Disk (between 5000 B.C. and 6000 B.C.). There are many who state that Mr. Poulianos is a third-rate archeaological amateur, but in fact his discoveries have shown many things that the world has never seen before. It is sad that the supporters of the Indo-European system deny Mr. Poulianos the right to continue his excavations in the Petralona Cave where he made his astonishing discoveries. As for Linear A and the Phaistos Disk, I do believe that there are some authors who proclaimed to have deciphered the language. I will have to check my sources. A bit of advice. Please think outside of the linguistic box. Linguistics are great and are very helpful, and believe me without them we would not be able to understand how people communicated in the past. However, linguistics can only take a person so far when it comes to history and the study of society. Charonite May 3, 2005 8:07 A.M. EST

As they say "all lies lead to the truth." Who defines who is "Greek"? Well, let me see. If the Greeks themselves prove through hard evidence that their own "abstract" definition of themselves is true, then they have the right to define themselves properly. Anyone can define himself/herself. It is just a matter of proving your identity through the physical evidence provided by the social environment. Charonite May 2, 2005 3:45 P.M. EST

Culture doesn't travel along racial lines! --Macrakis 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Culture does and does not travel along racial lines. Culture is dualistic and can take many forms. You cannot simply assume that culture is purely cultural. Culture encompasses many things including race. Whether the notion of race is looked upon highly or lowly in a culture depends on the culture itself and the people who adhere to its rules. You may think otherwise and that is fine. I really could care less. However, there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. You cannot put culture in a "cultural box" and expect it to stay there. Charonite May 3, 2005 8:11 A.M. EST

If I want to study Arthurian legends, I will go to England to study such things, not Japan or Libya.

You will study English sources, of course. But you don't have to believe them, and a Japanese or Libyan scholar may well have useful insights. See my edits, for example, to English language on the legend of the "Angles and Saxons". --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
True. However, I go to England first. Then I would check out with the Japanese and Libyan scholars for those useful insights. Then, I would compare the non-English insights with the English perspective on the non-English insights pertaining to Arthurian legend. Question your sources, but if your sources are true, then stick to them. Charonite May 2, 2005 3:49 P.M. EST

See what I mean? Of course you don't. I am an "evil nationalist" who knows a lot about history, but I am "unfair" since I am honest about what I write. Just leave me alone unless you have something constructive to discuss about without the unnecessary "evil nationalist" fingerpointing. Charonite May 2, 2005 2:41 P.M. EST

Did I say 'evil'? Show me and I will be quick to apologize. --Macrakis 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
No. You did not explicitly call me an "evil nationalist." I am sorry if I accused you of calling me an "evil nationalist." My purpose on the Internet is to ensure that Greek history and identity are portrayed correctly and accurately. I have had a history of dealing with people on forums and other places on the Web who constantly accuse me of being a sadistic-minded propagandist just because I write honestly about Greek history and Greek identity. When I saw that "neutrality" message in the article about the Greeks, I thought that the people who contribute to Wikipedia see me as some blind nationalist who disregards other opinions and viewpoints. I am open to other viewpoints and am willing to listen and read what anyone else has to say. Afterwards, however, I will come in and make revisions if I find something or anything that does not fit to how Greek history and identity should be portrayed. If people do not like what I write, then I ignore them. I believe in honesty over neutrality any day. Charonite May 2, 2005 3:57 P.M. EST

Charonite, there are two issues here: what you think is true; and what belongs in the Wikipedia. I believe you are mistaken about a lot of the above, but I do know that there are others who agree with you. According to Wikipedia conventions, if an opinion is widespread, even if others think it is completely wrong (e.g. Creationism), it should be reported. I think you are completely wrong about the origin of the Arvanites etc. (and by the way, I am very familiar with these arguments). But your opinion should be reported, along the lines of "Many Greek nationalists believe..." etc. At the same time, the opinion of the scholarly community at large should be reported, along the lines of "Most scholars believe...". And of course it is best if actual evidence is adduced -- on both sides. Just deleting things you don't agree with doesn't move the article forward. --Macrakis 03:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Macrakis, the issue is about honesty. It is not about how I think or how I believe Greek history should be portrayed. I can think to the honest today and think about being a total liar the next day. However, I analyze things from all points of view and judge what is best for the portrayal of Greek history and identity. You say that I am mistaken about a lot of things such as the Arvanites being Greeks. However, regardless of how familiar you are with such arguments, there is a difference between your opinion and what is true. You remind me of the Western European scholars back during the 18th and 19th centuries that expected to see ancient Greeks in Greece when they arrived in southeastern Europe. However, they were disappointed to find people who were of a medieval origin (i.e. Rhomaions), and these scholars determined ethnicities based solely on language and not on history, archaeology, and consciousness. If you spoke Albanian, the scholars would deem you as an ethnic Albanian. However, in the case of the Arvanites, they spoke a language that sounded Albanian, but they were not ethnic Albanians. The Arvanites were placed in an ethnic group they do not belong in by Western scholars. The Arvanites themselves find it absolutely offensive when you call them "Albanians." Of course, who cares? If a lie can be processed as "truth," then why not place it everywhere so that people will end up deluding themselves like Fallmerayer who believed that Greeks were Slavs and was not even close in terms of being cognizant of Greek history. You believe in Western scholarship only because it is the so-called "standard" in all fields of academia. I delete things that are untrue not things that I do not agree with. For instance, I do not like the fact that the Turks conquered Constantinople on Tuesday May 29, 1453. However, do I go around and edit such an historical fact which occurred centuries ago? No. Spare me the rhetoric of how my nationalist leanings blind me from the truth. I have been studying history for years and will continue to do so. Honesty is a part of my practice as an analyst and it is a part of my honor code. Your opinions thus far are unfortunately just that, opinions. Charonite May 4, 2005 11:14 A.M. EST

Greeks (Again)[edit]

                                                                  - Sysin -

One point: your edits would be more welcome if they were consistent with the flow of the article. Specifically, the Timeline of Greek Migrations should be a sequence of one-liners about Greek migrations (with as little history as possible, just a couple of words for context). It is not the place for diatribes about the history of Greece, which is a separate article, where you can elaborate about these subjects to your hearts content. Repeatedly trashing the timeline and entering a mispelled word (omoaimon instead of omaimon) after the error has been corrected 3 times is no way to have the rest of your edits taken seriously. Some of your edits do have a place in the article, but I have no patience to sit and separate the wheat from the chaff every time. Sysin 20:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

                                                                - Charonite -

First of all Sysin, I am fully aware of the fact that the timeline of Greek migrations should be succinct. However, they should be both succinct and historically accurate. There is a difference.

Second, I always spell the word "omoaimon" correctly. It is someone else who is using ancient Greek letters and misspelling the word. Besides, I cannot seem to access any ancient Greek letters in order to spell any ancient Greek words pertinent to the topic. I do not care if you take my edits seriously or not. To be frank, you should be more worried about being wary of where you are placing blame for whatever errors you find. Falsely accusing me for mistakes I did not create is a big mistake on your part.

Diatribe? Another one who thinks that placing honest Greek history in an encyclopedia has something to do with an "extreme nationalist" agenda. Anyone else care to jump into the bunch? You also state that you have no patience to sit and separate the edits you find as part of the "Greek diatribe" you think is not good enough for describing the Hellenes and should only be placed in the historical section of Greece. Just think for a minute how I feel when I see Greek history butchered and prensented like a processed piece of garbage. Charonite May 1, 2005 5:36 P.M. EST

  • I never said anything about extreme nationalist. I said something about on-topic. Being on-topic is quite quantifiable. Are the crusades on-topic on an paragraph about the migrations of the Greek people? I took some of your text from the timeline and moved it to the 'identity' section where it belonged. I did not delete it. You put it right back into the timeline. What's the point? You could write the most accurate article about silk production in the Morea (perhaps you are familiar with the joke?), if you put it under "migrations of the Greek people", someone will delete it. Focus, my friend, focus. If you want to contribute to the timeline, why don't you actually do some research on greek migrations and enter what you find? That's what I'd be doing right now if I wasn't wasting time with this nonsense. Sysin 19:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine. If you want the migrations timeline to be strictly about migrations, then do as you see fit. However, the reason why I put the Crusades in the timeline is because the Latins sacking Constantinople is in of itself a migration being that they migrated to the Byzantine Empire and held the territories of Eastern Thrace up until 1261 A.D. Also, people will look to the timeline as a short history of Greece and I feel that putting the Crusades (briefly mind you) would help greatly. Please consider leaving the Crusades in the timeline, because I know for a fact that people will go to the timeline (since it is short and organized) first before reading everything else. Charonite May 3, 2005 9:19 A.M. EST

Greeks Not a People?[edit]

Why do you insist that the Greeks aren't a people but a nation? Not only is this simply and obviously false, but to place it in the first sentence of the summary on Greeks is particularly glaring. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Show me where I wrote that the Greeks are not a people. The Greeks are both a people and a nation. Another one in the bunch who falsely accuses me for errors I did not create. All I want is to read Greek history that is honest in its content. Nothing more, nothing less. Charonite May 2, 2005, 9:34 A.M. EST
First, calm down; civilised discussions aren't possible if one person is too touchy. Secondly, I changed the article to read that the Greeks were a people, and you reverted it to read that the Greeks are a nation. Given that the article is about the Greeks, not about Greece, and that the rest of the article refers to the Greek people, my change seems both factual and consistent. That you reverted it implied that you disagreed with it. Moreover, to say that the Greeks are a nation is at best misleading; what exactly do you mean by "nation"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
You calm down Mel Etitis. You are the one who pointed the finger at me when the error about Greeks being a nation first came up. I never noticed that mistake when it first came up, and I also do not remember putting it in the article. I reverted it only because for a moment it made some sense. In fact, for Greeks to be called an "ethnos" rather than a "nation" would be more appropriate being that Greeks, even though had numerous civil wars with each other in their history, do perceive themselves as coming from the same ethnic ancestry. However, I would not mind having the word "nation" removed for the sake of ensuring informational accuracy. From here on in, I want you to stop falsely accusing me for every little change that your so-called "neutral" article about the Greeks undergoes. Just leave me alone unless you have something constructive to say without the unnecessary finger-pointing. Charonite May 2, 2005 11:52 A.M. EST

Accents in IPA[edit]

In the Greece article, you have changed the accents in words like /ɛˈlas/ to /ɛlaˈs/. But in IPA, the accent mark comes before the accented syllable, and not after the accented vowel. --Macrakis 16:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Since you are the linguist Macrakis, then you should go ahead and fix the error. Please fix it as soon as possible. Thank you. Charonite May 2, 2005 1:49 P.M. EST

Modifications to Talk page[edit]

Charonite, you appear to have removed some other people's content from this Talk page, and modified some of your own. That makes it hard to follow the discussion. I have no idea, frankly, what Wikipedia policy is on that, though. It's just confusing. --Macrakis 02:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No Macrakis. Someone else removed important content from this Talk page. All I did was restore what was lost. Charonite May 4, 2005 11:31 A.M. EST

Image copyright problem with Image:Souli00.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Souli00.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Dethomas 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)