Talk:List of historical Greek countries and regions

Original research plus other problems
First, this page needs to be renamed/moved so that it is clear from the title alone that it is about historic places as much as anything. Secondly, it suffers from a more fundamental problem, in that it creates its own - very broad - definitions of what comprises a "Greek country and region" and has then been populated unilaterally on that basis. No one, for example would cite the Roman Empire as a "Greek" country/region, even historically, regardless of Greek influence and elements. A couple of others I picked at random seem pretty dubious as well, eg Despotate of Dobruja and Great Wallachia. As for "Tenedos" and "Imbros", they could arguably be included, but not on the basis that they are, to this day, part of an "autonomous .. Greek country or region", as their placement and the use of the "to date" style currently suggests. The islands are part of Turkey. To the extent that the treaty in question still counts for anything in this regard, the point about autonomy was that it was due to be autonomy within Turkey. The only fair way they should be here is in a renamed article, and noted as having been under Greek control from 1912-23 (with a brief reference to their longer Greek cultural identity and population). Rather than being informative and useful, several entries on this page - and the title itself - seem to reflect an irredentist wish-list rather than anything else. Simply chucking a footnote after a controversial entry doesn't actually solve every problem (and nor does that source justify the "de jure subdivision" content that's regularly being inserted into the Bozcaada and Gokceada pages either btw).  N-HH   talk / edits  18:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't believe that the gentleman who is trying to impose his POV -at times without user name- is really in search of reliable academic sources; I mean those that do not support a certain preconceived position. (Sorry not to be able to say this more diplomatically.) All the same I refer them to the book "Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Disputes", which is available almost on its entirety on-line, to learn about several issues corresponding to the subject matter of the discussion, the islands of Bozcaada and Gökçeada, as well as many other issues of interest; in case I am mistaken on their intention. (I reached at that judgement due to my surprise on how easy it is to find this book in internet searches in case one wishes to learn about this theme.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The case of Imbros and Tenedos has been properly cited []. Adding historical events doesn't mean that they never happened, even 100 ago. But I agree that a specific rewording would be appropriate. Off course deleting the Imbros and Tenedos completely of this list is clearly a product of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as noted, you simply stuck a cite/footnote after some dubious content. Any source has to support the claim being made in the text. Here and elsewhere you're trying to construct claims about a reality that does not exist, based on your own interpretation of what primary sources say.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the source clearly claims that a region was to become autonomous (or semi -autonomous) under a specific treaty and this is added in text where is the problem? By the way I reverted the complete removal of the Tenedos & Imbros stuff, something you seem to agree that this should stay.Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Suppose it needs an explanataion why this: "The treaty specified full minority rights for both communities and, in addition for the islanders of Imbros and Tenedos extensive local autonomy.[] why the word autonomy is taboo in this case. Wweird enough but gbooks gives some hundreds of hits about this special status that contains the word autonomy.Alexikoua (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two problems here, which should be obvious by now. First, the word autonomy is not in the treaty and is only used by some sources to describe the requirements of the treaty (and even then often qualified - eg "limited autonomy", "form of autonomy"). It is not a definitive, explicit description. Secondly, beyond that, to construct a claim that the provisions of the treaty have created a "de jure" status, of autonomy or anything else, that applies even today is a claim you have made up through your own interpretation. It's not going in, here or on the individual pages. Anyway, the entry is still here, with alterations so that it reflects reality and what the (totality of) sources actually say.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object some remoddeling of the specific parts.Alexikoua (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some the other day. As noted, I left T&I there, albeit with changes. I wouldn't object if someone took them out, but if they are going to be here, they could definitely not be in the form they were previously, per the points above.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way the new title is in contradiction with part of the last section which includes still existent political entities.Alexikoua (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Historic" does not simply mean "only of history", it can just as easily mean "with a history". Either way, it's more accurate than the previous title without the word historic, which suggested that it was about current entities and that all these polities are still existence.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Epirus link in the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus description
It's obvious that the link to Northern Epirus shouldn't be removed, especially when the case here is the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus. It's essential for our understanding i.e. that an independent state called AR of Northern Epirus was established in a region called Northern Epirus, which happens to cover a southern part of the Albanian state. The link to N.E isn't found anywhere so there isn't duplication to the N.E article. []. Alexikoua (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added it in brackets. It may stay. --InNeed95 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Imbros and Tenedos again
Since there has been some controversy over this entry, I prefer to explain my edits in more detail than is possible in an edit summary. Some of the edits may be less obvious than others, so I will explain each part separately in order to avoid blind reverts. Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 "Part of the Ottoman Empire". This is, of course, true, but is it really necessary to mention in this list? I see that other "break-away" entities mentioned above in the list do not have this information. I do not feel strongly about it, but it feels neater to drop it. It also makes the entry shorter, which is a point. This is, after all, just a list.
 * 2 "being fought over between Greece and Turkey and other powers at the beginning of the 20th century" is, at best, imprecise. These islands were not especially "fought over" any more than most other areas of the Ottoman Empire. What kind of fight? And what other powers? What should be mentioned, however, is that the islands were under Greek administration from 1912 to 1923. This is one of the main reasons to include the islands in this list.
 * 3 "Returned to Turkey" does not really make sense unless you see Turkey as a continuation of the Ottoman Empire, which is not the prevailing view. It kind of implicates that other parts of the OE (like Greece?) has not been returned (yet?). I would have changed it to "ceded", which is the normal word to use in this context. I do, however, see that this also could be seen as POV (did Greece have it to cede?). I have therefore worded it differently.
 * 4 The special situation of the two islands after the Lausanne Treaty was not mentioned . The excemption from the population exchange and the autonomy (or "special administrative organisation", to be precise) are valid reasons for including the islands in this list. I have added the first, but not the second. It could be argued for mentioning the other part instead, or for including both of them. Since the autonomy never came about, I find the continuation of Greek settlement (and a Greek population majority for a long period) to be more relevant for the list.
 * 5 Finally, there is the question of the names of the islands. There is a more or less continuous fight about renaming these articles. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, it might be pertinent to mention both names in this list. I have included today's Turkish names where I feel they belong.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of historic Greek countries and regions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711171419/http://historymuseumplovdiv.com/index.php?lang_id=1&prm=actions&subprm=%20Zfdghkl: to http://historymuseumplovdiv.com/index.php?lang_id=1&prm=actions&subprm=%20Zfdghkl:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403113627/http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/balkan/G97 to http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/balkan/G97

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Flag of Himara.JPG