Talk:Greece

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2026

add Macedonian empire ~2026-23689-73 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you had read the article, you would have seen that Macedonia is already mentioned. Day Creature (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

pls can you change the "over 10 million" to "10.42 million" thx

THE WIKIPEDIA NEEDS THIS CHANGE Capitalism1991 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that would make the lead less readable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

no one flipping cares we want change ~2026-30851-03 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with capitalism1991 ngl it should be 10.42m

yes we need change ~2026-30851-03 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

21 world Heritage Sites

Just so you guys know, Mount Olympus has been added to the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites, bringing the total number in Greece to 21. Need to update any info in the article relevant to this subject pls. Thanks ~2026-41663-96 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Removing the File:Greek Colonization Archaic Period.svg map

I suggest removing the File:Greek Colonization Archaic Period.svg map in Ancient Greece section because grossly misrepresents the Archaic Greek colonies. source :https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780723003045/page/74/mode/2up. Note the original map, which has a thin green line of maybe 10 km in northern Turkey and almost no thickness in southern Turkey, while the new map has a thickness of 70–100 km. The same applies to Egypt, southern Italy, Albania, Spain, and France. Also, the areas of Epirus (150km were added), Macedonia (150km were added) and Thrace are included in the new map. Cyprus is presented as totally Greek. BreadAndHumus (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to the map in the book source, but I can find something quite similar also in other historical atlases, e.g. a Dumonts Atlas der Weltgeschichte I happen to have here. It looks pretty similar. Is there any sign that the thickness of these coastal stripes in either the source maps or our map is even meant to be significant? I think it is understood that these colonies weren't actually extensive areas but in reality punctual (individual cities, with very little hinterland each), and virtually all of them were directly on the coast, so the device of showing their overal area as contiguous stripes is a visual simplification in any case, and their thickness is not much more than graphic design choice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe WP:STONEWALL applies here "4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection,..." BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Future Perfect's response, the map (as well as every other modern map) is an approximate illustration of the areas that Greek colonies were established. In fact, besides some major colonies, the vast majority of Greek colonies remain unnamed in this map. Their presence is implied inside the red areas. It also doesn't mean that all of these areas are entirely or majority Greek; it merely indicates the furthest extent of some prominent Greek presence, ie colonies which were in communication with each other; it is not meant to have much more significance than that. Just a few examples, in Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas one can see much more colonies, which in this map are absent, e.g. in p.2 the colonies in Macedonia and Thrace, p.156 the colonies in the Adriatic Sea, in p.188 the ones in Libya etc. In A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean p.67 and in Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and Its Hinterland in Antiquity p.2 we see much more colonies in the Black Sea. Piccco (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe WP:STONEWALL applies here "4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection,.. BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Piccco and Future Perfect at Sunrise. I looked at [:https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780723003045/page/74/mode/2up the map on Internet Archives]. There are four maps, three of which focus on Greece. The forth one encompasses the whole Mediterranean Sea with the location of numerous colonies (much more that the figure in question). The highlight color might be slightly more confined to the coast, i.e., it is not as thick, but we are talking about a few pixels, but these maps are difficult to read because of this reason. Nevertheless, such a thicker highlighting is necessary to help the reader, e.g., the size of the cities are not as big as the circles used in the map. However, the highlighting of the original figure is consistent with other maps, e.g., and . For example, both of these maps highlight southern Turkey as in the original. These two maps have been added as sources to the figure in question in WikiCommons. Finally, accusing "gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection" other editors is insulting when you have no evidence, and one has to ask this about BreadAndHumus, given the pattern of behavior ever since the creation of this account (nearly all the edits have been reverted). Moreover you raised the same issue in Talk:Archaic_Greece#Removing_the_File:Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.svg_map, which constitute a violation of WP policies per WP:FORUMSHOP. Please comply with WP policies. A.Cython(talk) 17:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The maps you've provided are for high schools from 1890 and you cannot reference them here. You are insisting that the current map is fine. None of the three sources provided none shows a 70–100 km deep strip in northern and southern Anatolia, none includes Epirus and Macedonia, and none depicts such deep penetration into Africa, Italy, France, and Spain. The refusal to acknowledge the gross misrepresentation of the map and to remove it speaks volumes. BreadAndHumus (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been systematically trying to rewrite history here in elsewhere and at every stage you deny reality even numerous other editors disagree with you, e.g., Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Responses. We are all volunteers and we do not enjoy arguing over no burger issues. Your national sensitivities (as it becomes apparent) are irrelevant to any discussion. I remind you that there is a track record of your WP:NOTHERE actions and statements. So please start to comply with WP policies and use your energies into a more constructive attitude. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 18:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

none includes Epirus and Macedonia The source map shows colonisation all along the coasts of both Epirus and Macedonia. You are correct that our map shows a thicker coastline, but like Future Perfect and A.Cython this strikes me as an acceptable design choice allowing for legibility at the much smaller size Wikipedia's images are displayed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Besides that, I will just add that I also provided sources that showcase the number of colonies in some of these areas individually. Additionally, the south of Italy is well-known for its large number of Greek colonies , to the point that it was referred to as Magna Graecia. Piccco (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Someone could interpret this map as connected to the Megali Idea. It looks very similar (especially in the areas covering Turkey, Cyprus, and the Balkans) to this map . By grossly exaggerating the area of ancient colonies (adding 100–150 km), someone could be trying to legitimize irredentist claims. Here is another similar map BreadAndHumus (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Megali idea is dead for over a century due to the exchange of population between the two countries in 1922. The maps you presented are irrelevant. So this someone could be trying to legitimize irredentist claims is just getting out of hand. A.Cython(talk) 13:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks very similar (especially in the areas covering Turkey, Cyprus, and the Balkans) to this map It doesn't look that similar. That map covers much more of inland Turkey but doesn't extend anywhere near as far around the Turkish coast, and similarly goes much further inland in the Balkans; on the other hand the archaic Greece map covers a bunch of places which had absolutely no connection to the Megali idea (the coast of Albania and Croatia, southern Italy and Sicily, the mediterranean coast of France, the coast of Egypt/Libya). And if that's not clear enough, the caption is explicit.

I struggle to believe that anyone could in good faith misinterpret this map as being about the Megali idea. We can always make up a hypothetical person who might misinterpret anything written on wikipedia in some wild way, but without evidence that these people exist we can't possibly go around tying ourselves in knots to prevent them. There will always be another hypothetical bad faith misinterpretation. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing that we should keep a map that grossly exaggerates the areas of colonization and adds an extra 70–150 km. This map misrepresents historical reality. The refusal to remove it and replace it with an accurate one speaks volumes, especially in an article with many visitors. Someone could reasonably deduce that the combination of this misrepresentation, the refusal to correct the mistake, and the map’s inclusion in a high-traffic article points to an underlying objective. Why don’t you want to replace it with an accurate one? BreadAndHumus (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why don’t you want to replace it with an accurate one? I would be very happy to see a more accurate map. I don't see that one has been suggested. I would oppose removing a sufficiently accurate map without any replacement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Besides the mere insanity of this claim, I find the misdirection of the present discussion about an ancient map to such topics, and the obvious implications made above, very problematic. Piccco (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why don’t you want to replace it with an accurate one? BreadAndHumus (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody above has discussed replacing the map with another; what you proposed doing was simple to remove it. You brought up the notion of "replacing" it only in your second-to-latest posting, an hour ago. Have we got a more accurate map? If not, of course, feel free to make one. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Something tells me that the accurate rendition of the map will cause an uproar. There is no way you will let me post this map in the article for Greece. Let’s see if I’m correct or not. Give me 48 hours. BreadAndHumus (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)