This is an archive of past discussions about Greece. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
This under the section Greece calls Eleutheria e Thanatos (in big bold letters) a "national slogan" (it's the bloody title of the book). It's secondary since it gives the Greek embassy as a source (thas verifying the original propagator of the idea that it is a "national slogan")
from the pretext of that book: Many embassies of foreign countries in Washington D.C. were contacted in order to assemble national slogans for this book. Behind every slogan is usually a story. This book includes several of them. National slogans are often very revealing of a nation's values, goals and aspirations.. My emphasis on "nation's values, goals and aspirations", a verbatim definition of a national motto. Shadowmorph^"^07:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It calls it a "slogan that best illustrates the spirit of Greece's struggle". It is not calling it a state motto. Look at the entries for other countries: this book collects all sorts of popular slogans, often several for a single country. These are slogans considered of national importance or representative of a popular political stance in each country, but that is not what our infobox is about. Stop the silly sourcing games; they are a red herring anyway. We have established the facts sufficiently; we don't need more sources to support them. The slogan is just that: an historical slogan that is valued as representative of a certain patriotic view of the nation's history. Nobody doubts that, and nobody doubts such things are sometimes called "national mottos". The issue here is merely whether that should be what our infobox is for. I still maintain that the infobox, where "mottos" are placed in a certain neighborhood with other pieces of information which implies a certain official status, should only be for things that actually have that official status and/or are used in that official way. The Greek slogan isn't, we have established that sufficiently. The rest is an editorial decision, and no amount of further sourcing will affect that. Fut.Perf.☼07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous, don't go into WP:personal attacks. Future Perferct maintains a personal view about infoboxes. Since Wikipedia has no official policy or guideline to support it, that view can be challenged. It is challenged by all the other infoboxes that do not contain only official information. E.g. one of the two US infobox mottos is unofficial, never endorsed by law and actually a law was passed in 1950's to officially disregard it as an official motto thereafter. Still it is included in WP because of historical and encyclopedic significance. I myself maintain a different view of what the Wikipedia infobox should contain. The infobox does not have to bee all out of state official info but nation related. Just like it was always the case for infoboxes. I agree with what Future said: no additional sourcing will help the issue... long live and prosper!Shadowmorph^"^08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Why not delete the "Independence from the Ottoman Empire 25 March 1821" information too? That is not in any official document — it is only the official date of celebration — (some fringe theories actually claim it was the 24th). And also no one has found a non-tertiary source that "Greece drives on the right"; that info has remained unsourced for ages (sic). It just happens that 99% of Greeks will tell you that is by tradition. Unless we can source that with secondary sources or Greek legislation, we should remove it? Shadowmorph^"^08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop the Pointy type of behavior, there's no need for references for such info, and if somebody requests a reference I'm sure it can be found very easily in the driving code of Greece, I'm sure there are laws about which part of the road you travel, nobody can take you license for "driving against the tradition" -- or who knows, maybe that's another characteristic of Greek Police... man with one red shoe17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, that's funny about the police. No POINT intended, I'm not editing any articles, just talking. Anyway I agree with what you said - only don't be so sure that those laws about driving in the right exist :D Shadowmorph^"^18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"Coat of Arms" in the infobox
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
No objection to changing it to "National emblem", if that's what the Greek authorities prefer as an English translation (though I guess ethnosimo is in fact translatable as "coat of arms" just as well, as in fact the Greek WP also does, and this thing is certainly more like a coat of arms than like an emblem, but be that as it may, there's no harm in sticking with their preferred terminology here.) It can be done with a simple tweak to the infobox parameters. I'll do it if it's non-contentious. Fut.Perf.☼09:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "is certainly more like a..."? Read coat of arms definition does the schematic look like the greek national emblem to you? Also the word "coat" or the word "arms" have nothing to do with the english translation of "εθνόσημο" in any dictionary (it was "εθνικό σήμα" in the 1822 Epidaurus constitution).
Where does the Greek Wikipedia article translates it as a coat of arms??? Also, are you using the Greek WP as as a source stronger than the Greek presidency, or are my eyes deceiving me? After all that discussion about primary and secondary sources and "consensus is not needed if a good source is provided"? The Greek presidency doesn't call it a "coat of arms" (it is not the royal coat of arms). Check the primary source. Shadowmorph^"^09:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"Is certainly more like..": Yes, of course. It's an escutcheon, the typical central shape of a coat of arms. Not all coats of arms have all the rest of bearings, helmets, crests and whatnot. As for the meaning of the Greek word, is there any other Greek translation of the English word "coat of arms"? Because wherever I look (and not just in Wikipedia) I see ethnosimo used in just that meaning, referring to any number of arms of other countries, not just the Greek one (the Greek wikipedia has el:Εθνόσημο as the interwiki equivalent of our Coat of arms, describing the same thing, and all other national CoA articles also have their quivalents at "el:Εθνόσημο του ..."). But whatever, why are you making a fuss? I already said, I have no objections to changing it. Fut.Perf.☼09:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That strikes me as a bit nitpicky to me. "Hymn to Liberty" works fine as the title both of the full 1,000,000-stanza poem and of the 2-stanza hymn version. What should be changed is just that the infobox entry should contain a link to the article, which covers both these aspects of the topic together, and quite adequately. It's not as if the choice of stanzas made some important political difference, as it does for instance in the German case. Fut.Perf.☼09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
{{editprotected}}
According to above discussions, the following edits were requested by one or more editors:
Motto: Eleftheria i Thanatos. Include in the country infobox the motto: "Eleftheria i Thanatos, (Greek: "Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος", "Freedom or Death") (traditional)". Note the edit must include "(traditional)" or "(unofficial)" for now. See the above discussion to assess whether there is a consensus on that inclusion. The motto appeared in the article (with sources inside a remark in the code) before[1] and has its own article with more sources. There are several contested sources presented in the above discussion. The motto has not been re-included since protection was applied for a different edit war (about Republic of Macedonia) shortly after the removal. Shadowmorph^"^22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mythology: Include a subsection of Mythology under Culture. Include no text (summary style) but only a main article: link to the main article Greek Mythology (possibly uncontroversial edit but not a much discussed one either)
Also introducing this edit: Fix Hat-link placement:. Half of the hat link is over the protection template and the other half beneath it. Place both disambiguation links over the template. (WP:STYLE, uncontroversial) Shadowmorph^"^
Hmmm. I've always seen protection templates placed at the very top. Wikipedia:PP#Templates says something about the top, but it does not say what it means by "top", and in any case I doubt that sentence was intended to be a directive. Not sure which to do... J.delanoygabsadds23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you come to think of it a reader that is looking for a different Hellas should not care to read the template. He should be served the hat link right away. Maybe policy does not say that but its a sensible way. Shadowmorph^"^23:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Number 1 is disputed; no secondary source has been provided.
Number 2 should be pointless; this article links to Ancient Greece already. But add a {{cn}} tag to the mention of the 6th century BC (or take it out) in the section on Philosophy; it's too early for Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, or Epicurus; too late for Thales; and the implication that "most schools of philosophy" began with Pythagoras is absurd. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No issue, just a detail: I think the relevant policy is accurate enough for not having to quickly look for norms elsewhere. Thanks. If you are not sure about the the first two edits and Septentrionalis {{cn}} tag, I have placed this at the admin noticeboard for other admins to consider. Shadowmorph^"^23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Such templates are normally at the very top, to make it easy to tell whether it's there or not - and thus easy to remove when the protection lapses. It's not particularly important; but (as the closest we come to a disclaimer) I also feel it to be a reader service. Why does Shadowmorph care so much about a minor question of order? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment about #1: Shadowmorph, every one of your sources is disputed at this point, so the motto is still unsourced and #1 is still controversial without a consensus having been formed. (Taivo (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
But no edit should be requested from an admin unless there is a consensus on the talk page. That is wasting the admin's time. Only request things to be changed that are non-controversial or one which a clear consensus has been reached. It is your job to assess consensus before requesting admin action. (Taivo (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
... no polls and yet consensus... so, if I am getting it right, then consensus shall be reached only when ALL editors agree... I like your thinking Taivo...it will be very constructive when other issues will be addressed and the same arguments proposed. GK1973 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, GK, that is the meaning of "consensus"--a solution that everyone can be happy with. It is not decided by polls, but by a coming together (the literal meaning of "consensus" is "with the same mind") of opinion. It is possible to reach consensus on this. Just find a reliable source. (Taivo (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
I have reviewed the requests and assessed the consensus for them on this page.
Done. I find there is consensus for the motto to be included. However I have not cited a source for it yet. The links above point to the following [2] for me, which doesn't seem to have any information on mottos. If there is a better url, please let me know.
Done. Seems reasonable to me, but can be reverted on request.
Not done. I appreciate the arguments for placing the hatlinks at the top, but I agree they look better in their current position.
Maxime du pays : « La Liberté ou la Mort ».(it's near the bottom before section "Institution", or Ctrl-F to find it)
Everytime a source was provided, some reason was made up to disregard it. Even after all that orgy of evidence about being a traditional motto.... Now can we include the motto??? Or is there any more work requested by me? The info is verifiable. The Greek embassy is primary or secondary, reliable and official. So it's all good. In case you wonder, I found it in Quid's sources.Shadowmorph^"^06:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Embajada de Grecia en Madrid Greek Embassy at Spain:
the motto is explanatory inscribed on the flag.Shadowmorph^"^
A note about kindness: Anyone can pose a problem in good faith, either it is Future Perfect or Fermat and ask for other people to provide a solution. However, maybe except only mathematicians, it is more than usual only for Greeks to be assigned labors such as that? I bet if anyone ever deleted some of other info found in Wikipedia that is strongly related to some nation, he could provide a variety of reasons for not accepting sources. I bet Uruguay motto[unsourced], Vanuatua UN document is provided as a source at list of national mottos and Venezuela or Vietnam WP editors would have difficulty to providing a secondary source about stuff too. Shadowmorph^"^06:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The Spanish page is again unuseable, it doesn't describe it as a state motto (merely as an historical motto of the fighters during the War of Independence), and uses the words only to illustrate the symbolism of the stripes. The French one, well, at last we have one subordinate Greek government agency mentioning it. At last. I'm still not particularly happy, because this still doesn't show the Greek state actually using it as a motto. This motto thingie seems to lead the whole of its shadowy existence exclusively in these kinds of popular "Greece at a glance" factsheet gimmicks, rather than where you'd expect it if it actually was anything comparable to a true state motto: right at the top of the page here. Note, incidentally, that the French page lists it in the section on "history", not a bit further down together with the flag, which is actually quite reasonable, because that's where it belongs. (I would still strongly prefer to have the motto treated through an illustration of one of the historical flags in the history section, rather than in the infobox.) By the way, did you notice that the two embassy pages contradict each other about the symbolism of the flag? The one has the story about the nine syllables, the other has the story about the five stripes representing five seas. Now, how reliable can these pages be, if they don't even know what their own flag stands for? Fut.Perf.☼07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
To address your concern we can include "(traditional)". We can still cover it in a section. Meanwhile I suggest you take some of your concerns at the talk pages of countries listed on list of national mottos where it seems to me that WP:IAR is a good policy there. Shadowmorph^"^08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
For me the traditional interpretation of the stripes has always been enough to satisfy "appearance on national symbols". It is accepted at by vexillology sources, Greek officials and the Greek army. To include it in an infobox, there is no law that the letters of the motto should have to appear if the motto is symbolized, or traditionally thought as symbolized in the Greek flag. That should be enough for a traditional motto. The rest could be in a footnoteShadowmorph^"^08:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of your comment, but some seem to blinded on the fact that this page is about Greece (state) not about Greek nation... since this is about the state we'd like to see a web site or publication of the state that states (no pun intended) that this is the official motto... simple as that, coming with French or Spanish sources is very strange way to try to prove that, it's like somebody trying to prove a US motto coming up with Indonesian sources instead of US ones.man with one red shoe13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ignore that comment about Spanish or French sources, I only responded to "states are not nations" comment and didn't fully read this discussion. man with one red shoe15:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Greek PM addressed by Belgian PM
Here is a "foreign" source:
Athens, 2003-12-1: the prime minster of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt addresses the prime minister of Greece, source,other source,: "Ce n'est pas un hasard si la devise de la Grèce est encore toujours: eleftería i thanatos; la liberté ou la mort" (English:It is not out of chance that the motto of Greece continues to be: eleftheria i thanatos; liberty or death) . Shadowmorph^"^15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
at least try for your arguments to be plausible... that's state TV. It's one thing saying "The pope probably read it on Wikipedia" (sic) and another saying that state TV has to rely on Wikipedia for info on its own country(!!!) why not say that I wrote that, that's as plausible too (..not). You know what else is plausible that it was compiled from information provided by the Greek state itself. But that's just not your POV Shadowmorph^"^20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And state TV flunkies don't read Wikipedia? If it had an official source - legislation, a Great Seal, a flag now in use, that would be one thing; but it doesn't. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The ert.gr page is obviously copied from the EP page. Exactly the same entries and the same info in the factsheet, mechanically copied. Fut.Perf.☼20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit confict quick reply): Probably right, so what? e.g. about the number of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia we happily use some second level tertiary sources that copy paste Ethnologue as a tertiary source that itself cites a non-existent 1987 census (I know that is OTHERCRAP too....)Shadowmorph^"^
What you look for doesn't need to exist for the purpose of this discussion. The motto being a national one (at least traditionally) is a true and verifiable piece of information. There is no policy that the sources have to be what you like them to be. Especially there is no policy about mottos in infoboxes. If that info is included, that will substantially improve the article imho. Given that orgy of evidence I collected, try to see the big picture, please. How can one say now that "eleftheria i thanatos" is not the national motto of Greece without that assertion being WP:OR when we have so many sources confirming it? Aren't tertiary sources used elsewhere on the Wiki? Let's also remove all citations of Brittanica - it is just as unreliable as Quid is. We need to find the secondary sources that Brittanica uses about every bit of text and cite those, right??? Yea, I know... that's invoking WP:OTHERCRAP. Of course... any discussion about Greece being an exception to Wikipedia's rules is considered an OTHERCRAP argument. Forget about it. Speaking for myself I am not willing to throw common sense off the window and disregard all and any of the tertiary sources without a reason. Especially the Quid and Flags of the World. Also I consider the EP, the Greek State TV as secondary sources. Shadowmorph^"^
There is also no legislation that the full Hymn to Liberty is the "national poem" and Dionysios Solomos is the "national poet" but they would always be in Greece no matter what Wikipedia policy police says. That goes for the motto too. Shadowmorph^"^
I am sure you can provide some convincing argument about that PM source above being useless too. Shadowmorph^"^
What difference will this discussion will do? Greece and Macedonia-related articles probably stopped being part of Wiki-pedia some time ago. And guess what, it is not me that owns them. Shadowmorph^"^
By the way, how come no one is suggesting yet that Greece remain in lockdown indefinitely? I believe the lockdown of Greece broke all historic Wikipedia records of locked articles by going into its third month; I believe so but can't verify that. Shadowmorph^"^
I'll try to improve the Uruguay article instead (by constructively providing them sources for their motto, not by deleting it from the infobox), where I am not considered an "SPA". Shadowmorph^"^
And lastly, on what grounds exactly do you say that "Eleftheria i Thanatos" is not even a traditional motto of the Greek nation?Shadowmorph^"^21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No one has said Freedom or Death isn't a traditional motto (whatever that means). This is characteristic of Shadowmorph's approach to his sources. The only person to discuss the idea has been himself.
I will say, however, that we have no evidence that anyone (aside perhaps from tertiary list-mongers) except Shadowmorph has ever called it a traditional motto .
There are, of course, sources on tradition; they're called ethnologists.
In order for something to be a verifiable piece of information, we require a reliable secondary source. For the third time of asking, where is it? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's rephrase the evidence notion here. Shadowmorph, if you were charged with murder and your life was on the line, would you want the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence based on hearsay? Or would you demand that the prosecution use eyewitnesses or physical evidence? While Wikipedia is not a murder trial, we are trying to improve the product. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that this piece of "stuff" shouldn't be improved when it can be. (Taivo (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
I still don't get it... it's in the European Parliament web site, in the Greek army site, in the Greek school books in many other sources too and believe me if any of you will ask the Greek people "what is your national motto?" 99% will say "Freedom or Death" (it's something we learn in school and the motto we know when we celebrate our independence day)... still we need to find a reliable source. I really don't get it! Perhaps we have to make the Greek Prime minister to state on CNN that Greece's national motto is "Freedom or Death" and to sign on a reaaaaally big paper, with reaaaally big letters (just in case) to be valid :p It's the last time i write for this issue and that's because i really don't care if Wikipedia will write or not what the 11 millions of Greeks already know. It's obvious to me that some people for an unknown reason to me don't want it --xvvx (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A traditional motto means what it means in the US infobox. A motto, E pluribus unum, that "was never codified by law" and "considered" to be a "de-facto" motto, those are not my definitions. I bloody don't care if the US moto appears on a seal, because Greece has no seals and no congress. Still eleftheria i thanatos is a de-facto motto that probably was never codified by law. Isn't the interpratation of the symbolisms of the flag a Greek traditional interpretation? If not then why is it cited so often?
I haven't looked for ethnologists yet, thanks for pointing that out. I am sure if I find some ethnologists sources we will then go back to square one asking for official sources since as I see it there's supposed to be a Catch 22 for not including the Greek motto, nothing less.
Let's summarize: the Quid (encyclopedia) is unreliable (sic) because it also includes the official motto of Greece when it had monarchy. Quid is also tertiary list mongers (sic). The vexillology sources are secondary about flag symbolisms and mottos symbolized on flags, but we don't care about symbolisms (why?). The Pope and the Greek state TV probably read it on Wikipedia (sic). The Greek embassies are unreliable (sic). The Belgian prime minister is also unreliable even when quoting the motto to the Greek PM? (or will some other reason pop-up to reject that source). The Greek army source is misread (sic) and does not in anyway provide evidence of a long standing tradition (why?). The European Parliament source is unreliable (sic) and has no tradition in fact-checking and accuracy? (why?). The motto of the revolution is cited on every 25th march which is the Greek national holiday but that is irrelevant to the motto being "national"? (why?). The motto appears on multiple unofficial flags of 1821-1833 but that unrecognized state that recruited Byron has nothing to do with modern Greece (sic). It was also the well known motto of the Greek struggle for independence, but that has nothing to do with Greek tradition? (why?)
I just found the sources on the net. Let me remind anyone that I never edited Greece.(it's locked, just a reminder). Shadowmorph^"^06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
On the inner workings of WP rules
Attention All Editors: Please peruse/follow this in order to learn how the Wikipedia rules are formulated and implemented over time. This has a nexus to the current (non-ending) discussion, if you can understand the inner (I mean the inner-inner) workings of Wikipedia policies, the free encyclopedia. Esem0 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this a personal attack or what? What happened you don't like the position of one editor and you start a discussion about him in a random talk page? This is totally inappropriate, I suggest you remove this post or at least not continue on this line. Thanks. man with one red shoe03:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
2 months
Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion
Horologium has locked the article until a consensus can be reached on the use of "Republic of Macedonia" in the article. Once that consensus is reached, he will unprotect it. In the meantime, if something needs editing, propose it here and if it is uncontroversial an administrator will edit the article. (Taivo (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
In other words: it is forbidden to edit the article; you need a permit, even if the edit has nothing to do with the Republic of Macedonia. Shadowmorph^"^12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be a middle way. There are only two sections of the article which mention the Republic of Macedonia - the lead and the Foreign Relations section. It might be possible to deliver both sections temporarily as locked subst'd templates, with the rest of the article being open for editing. It would mean that those two sections would not be editable but the rest of the article would be OK. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the idea brought up by BalkanFever the other day. I actually like it, although of course it's not a technically waterproof method (there's nothing that could technically stop an edit-warrior to replace the transclusion template with their preferred version of the original text), but at least it would symbolically put the bar a bit higher. Fut.Perf.☼12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, all of this is just because there's still no clear evidence that the decision of the straw poll in March about the M.-naming in this article will be respected by a majority of the opposing editors. I'm sure Horologium (or any other admin) would be happy to unprotect, if we can assure them we have a clear consensus here that some status quo on this particular article will be respected by all established editors, at least until the conclusion of the expected larger dispute resolution process that will hopefully lead to a "package solution" for all articles. Either the present status quo, or some other. My own suggestion would be: get a significant number of editors who used to oppose the current status quo to confirm that they will respect it until something more general is decided, including being willing to revert back to it in the event of the (probably unavoidable) hit-and-run attacks from single-purpose-accounts, then we can call it consensus and say it's settled (for now). The alternative would be for someone to take an initiative and try to garner consensus for some other status quo, if they can, but I don't see that as very realistic. Fut.Perf.☼12:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should certainly remain semi-protected indefinitely - sadly, given the existence of a national psychosis on this issue, it can't be left unprotected. That should at least cut down on the hit-and-run attacks from newly registered accounts and IPs, and I'm sure that some of the less intelligent SPAs on this topic can be dealt with appropriately if they start edit-warring over the name. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's extreme, but given some of the hysterics into which certain editors opposing the use of the name "Macedonia" have gone (present company not included, just to be clear), it's hardly without reason. As for protection, I certainly agree that it needs to remain protected until a solution is hammered out. Heimstern Läufer(talk)13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the text in the map in any proposal for "sectional" protection. While not as sure a method of protection as total protection, it would at least keep the most rabid edit warriors at bay (Shadowmorph, you're not one of those). But if a consensus on the current text could be hammered out.... But that's probably just a pipe dream. (Taivo (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
We can do without the medical terms. I can provide justification for those editors, but then you would call me sentimental. I could point you to read WP:NO-PREEMPT that I found; would anyone describe the two,three or more months to be "Brief periods of full protection"? I think we are keeping the protection just because of a fear (justified or not) of future vandalism. Curiously the text of the article at Macedonia does not need protection. But for the five or six words in Greece, he wave to lock the article. But then again its not like anything I say will make a difference.Shadowmorph^"^16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, why beat about the bush? Direct question to you personally, as well as to Ioannes Tzimiskes, GK1973 and any others who have declared interest in getting it unprotected: If this article gets unprotected, will you personally leave the Macedonia name bits in it alone? Fut.Perf.☼17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Me personally, would leave them alon. Have you any reason to think otherwise? Have I edited that name anywhere else?
Also speaking for myself the "open nature of Wikipedia" is my biggest concern, I don't know if i share it with anyone here.Shadowmorph^"^17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I trust almost all editors who know about the arbitration case would behave likewise until the dispute is resolved and respect the process that will be followedShadowmorph^"^17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps if we can get such a confirmation from one or two others, that would convince the powers that be. I mean, we will still get drive-by re-fyromizations, but that will always be the case no matter how firmly established the consensus to the contrary might eventually be, so I don't think that should be considered a reason for continued protection. Fut.Perf.☼17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We can get back to the issue after consensus is established (that would have to include some references to the case of Greece). Of course that doesn't mean that I think the current situation is the best, I have some ideas of my own, but I will discuss them on the correct time and place. Everybody else should understand that any edit war about the name inside Greece is futile. No one can "win" it.Shadowmorph^"^17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure about what you mean by "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". I mean, isn't it the point about "establishing consensus" that after we have established it, there should be no more issue to be getting back to? Fut.Perf.☼17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The naming resolution will include Greece as well as anywhere else that Macedonia is discussed. There won't be any exceptions, so I'm also confused by what you mean with "getting back to the issue after consensus is established". Once it's done, it will be "done". (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
hey hey hey :) Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that the current references should stay, nobody should change them now and we can change them to whatever ones the consensus that will be established will prescribe when it is established. That's what I meant that we will get back to the issue. Obviously we don't have any establishment now since that was the whole original source of the dispute. After consensus is established we can get back and do whatever edits to the references that will apply. Shadowmorph^"^19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention to change it and really can't understand the logic about locking an article 2 months already (and with no final date in sight) because of two words! Moreover shadowmorph had a point by saying that the Republic's article is unprotected while also pending on the arbcom decision and i don't see any case of serious vandalism. The whole thing about the name dispute and how it was handled (for the core issue maybe surprisingly enough for you my objections are less) by members of the community towards greek editors is in my opinion unfair. Wikipedia has certain procedures and i feel they were multiply abused. --—Ioannes Tzimiskes Talk17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Centralised discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I move that the credibility of the above page is in serious doubt, considering the relevant history of the user who started it, and the bias of certain observations on it, as well as that user's inappropriate - to say the least - language towards a good number of users who have contgributed to this topic. Let it RIP. Politis (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
That centralised discussion page is mandated by the Arbcom decision. This process, and no other, will bring about a decision on these issues, and that decision will be binding across the project. You can take part in the discussion or not, that's up to you. Fut.Perf.☼17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There needs to be a correction. Republic of Macedonia is listed as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not just Republic of Macedonia. Since there is already a state called Macedonia which is in Greece this need to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.5.101 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Like so?
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I suggest placing the term 'Republic of Macedonia' in this article in quotation marks until the name issue is resolved, like so, "Republic of Macedonia". Any feedback on the suggestion? (please, I most kindly propose no comment be made from FPS since I am in no mood for rude, dismissive or abrupt remarks, I suggest some users need to learn the difference when editors - such as myself - make a suggestion on the talk page or make a direct edit on the article). Politis (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the country north of Greece is called Republic of Macedonia, no quotation marks are required. Quotation marks would indicate that its name is not that, but something else and that it is popularly referred to by that term even though that is not its name. Thus we have Pres. James "Jimmy" Carter and Pres. William "Bill" Clinton. Quotation marks are inappropriate here since Republic of Macedonia is the regular and formal name of the country and not a nickname. Now, on the other hand, "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a nickname applied to it only at the insistence of Greece, but it is not the formal name of the country. (Taivo (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
"former ..YRoM" is not a nickname, it's an official provisional reference adopted by the country itself for use in international relations.
Politis, maybe 'Macedonia' in quotation marks could be used, however but I agree that placing quotation marks at Republic of Macedonia might be a wrong usage of quotation marks. At the centralized discussion I suggested to use Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) or Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), but until a consensus is found I'd suggest that the sensible thing to do would be to leave those references to the country untouched. Shadowmorph^"^16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Taivo, OK, so you are unfamiliar with international norms. No problem. If you think "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a nickname (check that word)... then go edit that invaluable information across Wikipedia, and please do inform the UN, EU, WTO, etc, they need some light relief in these difficult days. Otherwise, the world is replete with international conventions implemented by the sensitivities of some country or other, but we do not go about it, or it would take up acres of Wikipedia.
Politis, you don't understand the concept of a nickname. It is any name that is applied by friend, family, or enemy to a person or entity that is not the official or legal name. Actually, "former..." isn't even a "name", per se, but a provisional reference. Macedonia does not use it (and has never "adopted it"--it refers to itself as Republic of Macedonia in all international documents--it simply does not object when others use "former..."), only Greece and certain international organizations that have allowed Greece to dictate. No, quotation marks around Republic of Macedonia are totally inappropriate and violate NPOV in Wikipedia. There is nothing unusual or unofficial about the name that would warrant quotation marks. (Taivo (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
It's a popular myth that Greece "dictated" the whole freaking collection of worldwide international orginisations from the all mighty NATO & UN all the way to the indifferent FIFA to use that term. The UN and both countries agreed to use that term until they found a solution. The orgs use that term not because Greece dictated them to do so but as a sign of neutrality to the issue. UN used that term in his own voice as a temporary measure until the dispute is resolved. UN did so because it acknowledged the Greek (territorial, historical) concerns to be valid and FYROM agreed to use it so as to be recognised by the UN and Greece until an agreement is found for the name issue. That's more or less the thing about FYROM.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Page 5 deals with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)
Just a note about the language "Macedonian" which by some linguists is identified as a dialect of Bulgarian (a Slavic language) some linguists identify it as Serbo-Croatian ( also a Slavic language) therefore is extremely confusing and does not comply with history as we know it. Since the Slavic people did not come to occupy the Balkan penninsula until a thousand years after the death of Alexander the Great of Macedon how can a Slavic language be termed "Macedonian?" It's like Papua New Guinea claiming they have changed their ethnicity to Queenslanders and changing their country's name to Queensland and naming their language as Queenslandish! I find this an usurpation and falsification of Greek history and territory and a gross miscarriage of truth and justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.9.241 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Greece, the land of light
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a missing section explaining that Hellas means THE LAND OF LIGHT and implies that the rest of territories were submerged into intellectual darkness/barbarism. 87.219.85.254 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Lead
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We've missed out the fact that Ancient Greece (?) invented fire, light, oxygen and everything else.
On a more serious note, the lead reads like an advertisement for visiting Greece.
Firstly, Western drama was made famous by Shakespeare more so than by Ancient Greece.
Mathematical principles where articulated in the East as were major scientific discoveries which facilitated later Western advancements. The claim to being the birthplace for political science is equally disputable. This needs to be fixed, methinks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Since the article is protected, I make a comment here. In the sports section, it is stated that the national soccer team is currently ranked 20th, which is not valid (it was true sometime in 2007, when this was posted) - current rank is 11th. Since FIFA ranking changes continuously, either somebody should regularly update this paragraph, or - perhaps better - takes off entirely the ranking info and simply provides link to the FIFA ranking site. Skartsis (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The segment on ancient Greek philosophy is somewhat limited, esp. the section dealing with the Presocratics. A more apt name(though 'Presocratics' is a name still being used), would be the Materialist Philosophers of Ionia, the region now known as the southwestern coast of Turkey, (the part of Turkey facing Greece, right across from the island of Rhodes). The term "materialist" is a philosophical term referring to a branch of philosophy advocating that matter precedes spirit. Most notable philosophers of Ioania were three, namely: Thales, Anaximandros, (or Anaximander), and Anaximenis. All three believed that life originated from either, water, air, soil, fire, or from all four substances taken together. They all came from the then known Ionian city states
of Miletus, and Alikarnassus (modern day Turkish town of Bodrum). Their ideas were kept alive by such other later day philosophers as Heraclitus (all is in a state of flow - ΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΡΕΙ), Epicurus, and Democritus, the father of the atomic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.118.239 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, welcome and thanks for your suggestions. Please feel free to propose some text to be added or reworded in the article. Unfortunately the article is currently semi-protected, so you will not be able to edit it directly, but if you place some proposed text here, somebody else will add it for you. Just keep in mind it's only supposed to be a summary article and the amount of coverage needs to remain balanced with all the other topics without making the total article too large. The main Ancient Greek philosophy article is of course much more detailed. Fut.Perf.☼19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The map
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The map that you have in this article indicates the FYROM as republic of "macedonia" Since Greece has not accepted this name for FYROM it is not right to have this map here. Please change or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.205.213 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure we ought to individualize for Greece (or any other country), even if this is the Greece article; that's just not how we do naming conventions here. For the last couple of years we've been using Republic of Macedonia — all other uses elsewhere follow from what this main article is called. El_C13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For those who missed it, the matter of Macedonia's name has been decided for Wikipedia purposes at WP:MOSMAC2. No more "FYROM" in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
I dont say that you must change it with a map that contains the name FYROM but you should remove the map due to the decision of Greece for the name. And i dont want a battle just this map removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.238.152 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
famous people
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Vampires are real because i have seen one in calacary in 1996.i think is good to put some photos of famous greeks ,such as theodorakis and callas in the field of music,
I reverted back to the Loutraki photo, which shows actual people, rather than the photo of what really is architecture that you had placed. El Greco(talk)21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
actually is not a characteristic photo of greek tourism,when somebody thinks about greek tourism doesnt think the loutraki beach!!!
the picture is about a typical greek island where is the main interest from tourists!
if u want we can put a explanation under the photo or search for another!thankuGreco22 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Greece is now Socialist
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC), Greece is socialist to present due to a new leader in power named George Papandreou Jr.
I actually did Corfu. The rest is a bit difficult, and in any case the map is so imprecise adding too much small detail doesn't really make much sense. It's only for a very rough overview anyway. Fut.Perf.☼17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. If I can recall, previous version used to have all islands, maybe we should stick with that instead, if its too difficult to add the rest of the islands? I mean, excluding cyclades and sporades where at least 200,000 people live there, is not a very small detail. I hope you understand the point.77.83.191.156 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this page locked?
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Greece as the country of greek - greek: from the old Turkish slang word greco meaning slave the Hellenic community chose this name in order never forget(or forgive) the time their nation was under their cruel hold.
the above is a translated part from a book of fourth grade class of elementary school in Greece
The original name Hellas (the h is mute) is the most proper name of their nation that they mostly prefer over the others, in the extend you can very easily earn ones of them respect by showing the respect calling them Hellenic (the h is mute)
Greece is derived from an ancient name of the Greek tribe as ancient Greeks had many names for themselves like Hellenes (Ἕλληνες) and the country Hellas (Ἑλλάς), Graeci (Γραικοί), Graecia (Γραικία) and others. However, only "Graecia" passed to the Latin language and then to the rest of Europe.Dimboukas (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On the infobox, Ranking for GDP per capita and GDP per capita (nominal)should change to 25th and 26th respectively and include the new vaules for 2009 according to IMF.82.68.83.147 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Etymology
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Greece as the country of greek - greek: from the old Turkish slang word greco meaning slave the Hellenic community chose this name in order never forget(or forgive) the time their nation was under their cruel hold.
the above is a translated part from a book of fourth grade class of elementary school in Greece
The original name Hellas (the h is mute) is the most proper name of their nation that they mostly prefer over the others, in the extend you can very easily earn ones of them respect by showing the respect calling them Hellenic (the h is mute)
Greece is derived from an ancient name of the Greek tribe as ancient Greeks had many names for themselves like Hellenes (Ἕλληνες) and the country Hellas (Ἑλλάς), Graeci (Γραικοί), Graecia (Γραικία) and others. However, only "Graecia" passed to the Latin language and then to the rest of Europe.Dimboukas (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On the infobox, Ranking for GDP per capita and GDP per capita (nominal)should change to 25th and 26th respectively and include the new vaules for 2009 according to IMF.82.68.83.147 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
On British press calling us bankrupt.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Agree 212.54.223.150, As for the role the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs are playing with Greece and Eurozone see [3](in greek). And what Libération's J.Quatremer[4] said about how Goldman Sachs attacked Greece in earning money by gaming the market, creating panic for a bankruptcy through the Financial Times' timely scaring scenarios during the previous weeks[5](in english). See also Angela Merkel's yesterday statement about the scandal. --Factuarius (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Athenean, do you have any explanation for this revert, other than "nice try"?
I simply reverted a POV pushing nationalistic edit which contained unsourced speculations against Turkey and added a {{failed verification|date=March 2010}} to the ref which does not support what was being written on that sentence.
Oh, and one more thing, this is English WP, so Constantinople -> Istanbul.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Currently the national language links to the broad and more ancient Greek and not the Modern Greek page, which is the national language of Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaenia (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged?
Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion
The first paragraph in the History section of the article starts with "Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged". This phrase is very bold and I would say untrue. Every civilization is based on previous advancements and to call a civilization the first would be inappropriate. Are we implying something about the Thracian? What do you mean by Greece as an area of advanced civilization? Was there any Greece at that time?
Therefore instead of:
Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged, beginning with the Minoan civilization in Crete and then the Mycenean (note the typo) civilization on the mainland.
The present wording is fully justified I believe, taking into account both the remarkable achievements of the ancient Greeks in science, culture and political development, and their impact on the European (and by extension the World) civilization since then. Apcbg (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not Monshuai. I agree that the Greeks (during a certain period in World's history) had a very well structured development in a lot of areas of culture but the current wording suggests that the Helladic civilizations where more advanced than all other European civilizations at that time. Therefore once again I propose a change in the beginning of the paragraph. It also makes sense to include the Cycladic civilization in this opening words. After a review we can obtain a more informative and less biased version. Thank you. --A.kamburov (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"... the Helladic civilizations were more advanced than all other European civilizations at that time." Quite so, and beyond comparison. Apcbg (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought that Wikipedia always recommended the use of citations from trusted sources. Not my or your opinion. Maintaining a biased (not neutral) point of view is good only from the eyes of the person who's writing it. Wikipedia is a place for facts and not storytelling. I'm not a history professor and I have put up a question to be cleared up. My intent was to propose to Wikipedia a better reading of the historical facts but if I'm proved wrong I would acknowledge that. If the current wording is supported by many historians and I'm not aware of the facts, it would be easy to find a source and include it as a citation. I hope the discussion will be more straightforward now that I have cleared the reason behind it. I still suggest that the wording should be changed to a more neutral one. --94.26.79.18 (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no wont for such sources, for instance this Google books search would produce more than ample multitude of them. You might wish to choose and quote some of these, I for one wouldn't care to substantiate what is, after all, a common knowledge statement. Apcbg (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to repeat that I don't want to undervalue the achievements of the classical Greek civilizations. But although today for most of the Western world it is "common knowledge" that everything started from Greece, maybe tomorrow we'll include the other pieces of the puzzle and discover a more colorful image (When will we learn from the history of science that everything has it's cause and everything has a more profound reason than what we have found to this very moment?). Your link to Google Books have inspired me to look for some information by myself and the evidence for my questions wasn't hard to find (ex. Vinča symbols, Thracians and Mycenaeans, The Quest for the origins of the ancient Thracians). So was "Greece" the first area of early advanced European civilizations? I would like to close the discussion now because (from where I see it) I can write as much as I want to support my thesis but not change your opinion. In fact the real reason for creating this discussion was that when I saw the article, I wasn't logged in and I couldn't change it by myself. I thought that I have to write in the talk page to ask for the change. I have revisited the page and realized that I can change it without any help. So thank you for the attention and sorry if I have lost your time. --A.Kamburov (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"... although today for most of the Western world it is "common knowledge" that everything started from Greece, maybe tomorrow we'll include the other pieces of the puzzle and discover etc." Maybe we will, then again maybe we won't. One cannot edit based on "maybe"; do you have reliable sources confirming that "maybe"? If and when that happens, then the text would have to be duly modified. Until then, no reason to change the present wording (I am not going into reversals; if everybody here is happy with your edit, so be it despite my disagreement). One last point: Even if you were to discover tomorrow some presently unknown ancient civilization with greater achievements than those of ancient Greece, you would be in no position to move the supposed discovery back in history to have such a civilization catching up with the Greek one in its impact on the Western and World civilization. That Greek impact has happened, it's a fait accompli, and history cannot be undone. Subject closed. Apcbg (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the only good part of this edit is that the Cycladic civilization was added. On the other hand, I cannot see what's the point of it and
the argument of A.Kamburov. Actually, "But although today for most of the Western world it is "common knowledge" that everything started from Greece, maybe tomorrow we'll include the other pieces of the puzzle and discover a more colorful image" isn't an argument to base on your changes on a stable version of this sentence. A good argument could be if this editor could provide to us some earlier advanced civilizations in Europe than the Cycladic, the Minoan and the Mycenaean. I'm against this change too. - Sthenel (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment Sthenel. I'm not an established editor of Wikipedia and I'm not very familiar with the way you discuss a proposed change to an article. I might had to continue the talk to end my proposal with a refined version, confirmed as is or dismissed in its entirety. First, I have added the Cycladic civilization because it is among the other two important civilizations in the Helladic period (actually the Greek Bronze Age). Why would you cite only two out of three confirmed discoveries? There is also a chronological order that is important. If you just want to mention some of the Bronze Age civilizations there, why not just say Helladic civilizations and link to it (this is done for the city-states). But let's say you want to include those civilizations. I'm against the phrase "Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged" which continues by citing the Aegean Bronze Age civilizations. This might be "popular" common knowledge but in my view there is another common knowledge about Bronze Age in Europe (please read my links, I read them and I use information from them) that the word first interferes with. One should be very careful with this word as I have previously wrote. The article covering Europe makes a perfect example of good usage: "first established a far-ranging trade network". I hope you have grasped my point but if there isn't still enough proof, I'll look for more details. I have also noticed an ambiguity between Helladic and Aegean civilizations' pages, notice a difference between the description of the Helladic period and it's mention in Aegean Bronze Age. Looking forward for further comments. --A.Kamburov (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Sthenel has applied among a lot of improvements on 12 March 2010 at 15:14 some of the remarks I have made to the beginning of the history paragraph. However two of the points I have made are still to be discussed. The use of "first" for the "greek" civilizations in Bronze Age Europe and the irregularities in the use of the term Helladic period. I'm waiting for a comment on the first issue for a week now and regarding the second one, I don't know if it can be commented here or I should bring up the question on the relevant page. --A.Kamburov (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should say explicitly what is meant by "advanced early", like time frame and degree of advancement. Is the pre-Thracian Varna civilization "advanced"? Is the classical Thracian civilization "early", meaning the pre-Hellenic one associated with the numerous Thracian gold treasures that have no parallels in ancient Greece but are arguably influenced by the Persian culture (not so surprising given that the first statehood to incorporate large parts of Thrace was the Persian Empire)? Apcbg (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment Apcbg. Although I wasn't very good at expressing my point, this is what I was implying by proposing the modifications. In my view, the easiest solution is just to change the use of the word "first" without going into details as this is not the point of the paragraph I'm discussing. Also Greece is a "modern" term and it's not appropriate to use it in the way it is now. --A.Kamburov (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is not the article where we should discuss what is meant by "advanced early" civilizations. The Minoan and Mycenean civilizations were the first literate civilizations in Europe. There is nothing controversial about that, nor is there anything controversial about saying that Greece was the first area of Europe where advanced early civilizations developed. Athenean (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Athenean, I think that I have defended my proposal at a certain level so if you want to include a new point (ex.: first literate civilization in Europe) in the discussion, please provide some support. --A.Kamburov (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"Some support"? Are you kidding me with this? I'm not including any point, other than the article should stay as is per WP:OBVIOUS. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sources that use special wording to alleviate the fact that Minoans and Mycenaeans are well studied but other civilizations might not be so: "The first well-known literate civilization in Europe was that of the Minoans of the island of Crete and later the Mycenaens in the adjacent parts of Greece, starting at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE." (from History of Europe)
- Sources that say something like: the Balkans in general (south east Europe) were the area where advanced early civilizations have emerged. See first pages of this book: Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe
As a conclusion I would like to request for a more constructive and less offensive dialog. If you, Athenean, do not want to prove anything but otherwise wish to state your point, please continue to comment on my suggestions more calmly.
I thought that we can reach a consensus if something closer to the wording of the article History of Europe is used. But it seems impossible to me to include "well-known" in a phrase like "Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged". I propose that everyone who is offended or does not understand what I'm talking about to read the Table of contents and First pages of "Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe" (the book I referred to in my previous comment, available in larger portion also on Google books (Early civilization and literacy in Europe: an inquiry into cultural...)). I strongly suggest that we change the wording to less "creationist". --A.Kamburov (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
As there are no further comments, I considered a new proposal for the beginning of the History paragraph. After reading Balkans prehistory and some other Wikipedia articles, I came up with: "Three advanced Bronze Age civilizations mark the earliest history of Greece, beginning with the Cycladic civilization...". If nobody is against that I'll commit it to the corresponding paragraph. --A.Kamburov (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am against it. The current wording is just fine, leave it be. Your wording is clunky, and also wrong. The Cycladic and Minoan civilization are the earliest in Europe, not just Greece. Athenean (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. Your reply falls in the forth section of the disagreement pyramid according to Wikipedia:DR#Avoiding_disputes. Although my phrase might not be good enough, I think I have clearly stated why I'm against the current beginning of the paragraph. Numerous Wikipedia articles support my thesis. The Minoan civilization comes a little bit after the Cycladic and the latter is mentioned nowhere as being the first one or the greatest in Europe. I might agree that Minoan and Mycenaean, maybe due to their trade network, reached great heights but this does not mean they are the first civilizations in Europe. The Balkans in general have had good links to the Middle East and followed the emergence of human civilization. In my view, Greece was established as a European center of culture during the Minoan civilization. It is not the sole civilization in the Balkans and the mainland always gets influenced by the progress made abroad (not only on the islands). Reading other articles on Wikipedia makes all this clear but reading the history paragraph of Greece creates a false and narrowed view of early Europe. It says something like "everything began in Bronze Age". As to my knowledge it's the only place where this type of wording is used so I have reacted and will not withdraw my proposal for changing it. Once again, I'm asking for counterarguments and not simple contradiction. I have stated at least 5 sources that support my words so either my reading of them should be proved wrong or they all have to be refuted (several other Wikipedia articles should be changed). --A.Kamburov (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Using other Wikipedia articles as an argument is one of my favorite mistakes to watch. What other advanced civilzations were there in the Balkans beside the Cycladic, Minoan, and Mycenean (please, please, do not tell me the Thracians)? All the early advanced civilizations in Europe evolved on the territory of what is now Greece. There is nothing incorrect or inappropriate about that statement. Therefore I don't see any reason to change the relevant passage in the history section. You and your sources have proven absolutely nothing. Athenean (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll stick with Wikipedia for now and I won't go into a discussion about the Thracians. Here are some examples of "Old European" cultures: Vinča culture and Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Maybe sea trade was better than land trade (as proven later by Aegean civilizations) but these cultures do not fall too far behind from what we'll later call civilized people. For example they had trade, agriculture, religion, technology, farming, a settlement of 15 000 people. All Europe had this type of culture before the "civilization process". I'll advance the discussion by stating that the Cycladic, the Minoan and the Mycenaean cultures altogether and gradually formed what is maybe the most advanced early civilization in Europe. I don't see anymore the point of urging a change in the current wording as I see what are it's strong points and its weaknesses. I don't believe it is of good quality but if there is no willing for change, I am not the one to force it. Just out of curiosity, I extracted the history of the paragraph. What was at first (13:42, 17 November 2002) "The shores of the Aegean Sea saw the emergence of the first civilisations in Europe" became in the end (13:54, 6 February 2009) "Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged". I suggest that in the future the opening paragraph returns to its roots, explaining that the early Aegean cultures became the first advanced civilizations in Europe. A mention to the emergence of the civilizations from previously cultivated people will limit discussions as this one. Last point, the history of Greece according to the current wording starts from 3500-2000BC. --A.Kamburov (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You can't possibly be serious about comparing these cultures to the Minoan and the Mycenean. They didn't even have writing. Ergo, they aren't advanced, ergo there is nothing wrong with the current wording. "Culture" does not equal "Civilization". The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense, so I leave you to your own devices. Athenean (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I will also leave you to your belief that Minoan's where the sole people in Europe to communicate with the rest of the world. I have noticed that you don't bother making sense of what others are trying to say (even if they have it somewhere wrong) so I'm fine. I guess this discussion is ready for archiving. --A.Kamburov (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Climate
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is important to mention that Greece according to the World Meterological Organisation hold the official highest temperature record in Europe with 48.0C recorded in Athens.Please see Athens article for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.76.107 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't wish to comment on the argument about Greece as a pseudo-primordial civilisation. I haven't read the thread and I suspect both sides have a point about wording.
But the opening six paragraphs of the history section seem to me an excellent and intriguing introduction to the subject. Bravo, Greece editors, and thank you! Robertbyrne (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Needs Section on Current Economic Crisis
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion
I don't understand why editors do not want to include the greece bankruptcy. I now people say wiki isn't the news, but this has been going on for nearly a year, it's just now that it's been advertised and made present to the public. Dates saying greece was deep in the red date back to early-mid 2009, so I don't get why editors say "it's too recent". It's recent enough to be included and important, but old enough to be considered an established fact and not just a recent news swoop. As for now, I'm re-putting it, 'cause I'm sorry, but anyone who reads the economy section is stunned at how there isn't even any info on Greece's 2008 - 2010 huge financial crisis, banking problems, massive debt and vicinity to bankruptcy. As for that, since it's relevant and recent, but not just a one minute yesterday news swoop and is an established fact with tonnes of reliable sources, I'm putting it back in.--Theologiae (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the end of the economy section, there is a dedicated sentenceto the recent fiscal crisis:
By the end of 2009, as a result of a combination of international (financial crisis) and local (uncontrolled spending prior to the October 2009 national elections) factors, the Greek economy faced its most severe crisis after 1993, with the second highest budget deficit as well as the second highest debt to GDP ratio in the EU. Your addition is thus redundant. Second, it's placement at the top of the economy section and its tone are not NPOV ("causing problems for the euro). Athenean (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not redundant, 'cause nothing is written about Greece being bankrupt, only a very short two lines of how Greece is suffering a financial crisis. Plus, it's not POV, because it's true that Greece was causing problems to the value of the euro, so that before Germany and France aided it, it was thought about removing it from the eurozone. It doesn't matter whilst it's at the top or not. If you don't like it at the top, just put it somewhere else (even though such as big problem seems obvious to be put at the top). This is not a matter of preference really; it's an established fact with a huge amount of evidence, and it just seems you do not want to include it. It's not opinion, but recent, established fact. I'm sorry, but it just seems like some people are working against making this encyclopedia better and more reliable.--Theologiae (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please assume good faith and don't make assumptions about my motives. It's not very nice. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be included, but not in the fashion you have. I will move it to a more apptopriate location, and slightly change the wording of "causing problems for the euro", which is vague and unencyclopedic. Second, I can come up with just as many sources that Greece, while going through a fiscal crisis, is not on the verge of bankruptcy and is solvent till April. I will include that as well. Hope that's ok with you. Athenean (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The funny thing is, even from the three sources Theologiae provided, only the article from JoongAng Daily hints about "Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy" being a fact (btw, who is Bae Myung-bok and why should his opinion be given more weight than that of the president of the ECB for example ?). The other two present bankruptcy as a scenario, the one that draws the most fears, not because of its probability but because of its consequences. The problem with this discussion IMO is that whatever statement or analysis one might present to make his case, most of them are, either distancing Greece from bankruptcy or doing the opposite, part of a greater info game, which in turn has a lot to do with what this crisis is about. That's my main reason for considering the sentence unacceptable and the whole discussion without much meaning at present. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be rude or anything. When I said that I meant "sometimes it irritates me how some stupid reasons are given for not including things", not "I think you are a bad editor", and if you understood badly, then I'm sorry. I see your point... it's just that with such a huge recession Greece is going through, it seems just a bit inappropriate to have several paragraphs on how Greece is so productive, industrious and has such a flourishing economy (which I do not doubt), but then only have one or two lines just mentioning in the least detail possible Greece's financial crisis. Now, by no means am I saying to erase the economy sector and write tonnes of paragraphs on all the detail of the recession, but to at least have one worthily sized paragraph on it seems appropriate. Anyway, I hope I can collaborate to improve this article.--Theologiae (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree with Δρακόλακκος above. Two out of the three sources say bankruptcy is a scenario. That is very different from saying it is on the verge of bankruptcy. The third source is just some website, what are its credentials are far as meeting WP:RS? The only thing we can say so far with certainty is that Greece is struggling with a huge debt and budget deficit, but not much more. If Greece does go bankrupt and this causes problems for the euro, we could include that, but until such time I think it is best not to do so, particularly as it is not backed up by the sources provided. Athenean (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No way Theologiae. We are not here to play the parrots of wall street and city speculators with dubious priorities trying to make money by trying to ruin countries. No serious analyst included nobelist economists, give a chance in such ridiculous scenarios. As for the scaring tactics inside EU, everyone adequately informed, and enough logical, knows that EU cannot really afford such a scenario in any case, and that behind these there is only a push to some other EU countries and their people (such as Italy and Spain) to take and accept more drastic measures in reducing their debts. No need to participate in such games here in WP. Now if you really believe that such a scenario has any chance and is notable (and you don't trust the today statement of Jean Claude Juncker), wait a while until bankruptcy happen and then you will have every opportunity to write a full chapter about "Greece's bankruptcy". Until then I accept your concerns in informing the readers, in good faith, but is better to post them in a more appropriate media to avoid making WP another player of that game of scenariology and avoid misunderstandings about your intentions. --Factuarius (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
What is written in the article is factually incorrect and reflects a Greek nationalist agenda. The rest of the EU is not happy with Greek government policy in dealing with the crisis, and this article claims that they are. Furthermore, other so-called facts are completely misleading: Greeks have always had a problem with saving money, and most of the assets in Greek banks are from Albanian deposits rather than Greek account holders. It is therefore debatable what the deposit-lending ratio means for the economy, although it has implications for individual banks. Other economic data are just left as the fraudulent statistics that Greece presented to the EU -- without comment. Sorry, this is not a serious article when it ignores the worst economic crisis for Greece in 50 years. 85.72.235.178 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If we can find some serious expert analysis, then by all means the issue should be discussed. However, short-sighted guesswork by the popular press aren't reliable sources for this one.--Ptolion (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think enough is enough with that story. Today's Times say British finances for 2010 to be worse than Greek deficit!![6]. I wonder if someone will now go to the Great Britain article to rise such issues there. Theologiae? --Factuarius (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"The rest of the EU is not happy with Greek government policy".. this implies that there is someone in Greece who is happy with govt policy? Prepare for a long search. Richiez (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. You just quote idiotic press: the British economy has budgetary problems, and is also in a weak position because of banking dependency. The Greek economy has had a sustained history of indebtedness for no reason other than giving unnecessary jobs to political friends and corruption in the pension system, while doing nothing to support industry or even small family businesses. However, the situation with the Euro has made all of this even worse, and that is where the rest of the EU comes in. The UK was not in the Euro and its currency collapsed a year ago as a consequence of its weaker economy; the Greek currency is the Euro and remains the same, leaving Greece with no soluations to its longer term economic problems as well as no solution to its debt problems. Leaving the article as it is, hides all of this and is deliberate fraud, much as the cause of the mess in the real economy! 85.72.235.178 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The quote "This would be the equivalent of around 12.8 per cent of GDP, just in excess of Greece’s 2009 deficit of 12.7 per cent." make any sense to you? As for Britain not being in the euro-zone, exactly, that's why no country are feeling bound to come to rescue the British economy if will faced an imminent bankruptcy. And since you found Time's article an "idiotic press" why don't you apply there for a job as economist analyst? It will help the newspaper to have a less idiotic character, and you will help the Greek banks to increase the "Albanian deposits"[7] by rising your bank account. --Factuarius (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you stick to things you understand, Factuarius. A budget deficit is a temporary problem, whereas Greece's problems are long term and far more serious. Whereas for the UK this is a difficulty, for Greece it is a disaster. You don't get it? Tough luck: the world is a complex place and you just aren't competent to analyse economics. And for the personal comment, which is stupid, you may like to know that I was a lecturer in economics in the UK 20 years ago. 85.72.235.178 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my stupidity, now you explained to me that you are an ex-lecturer I fill sympathy for you. I was also an lecturer, in Harvard, before coming back in Greece. Now I am also washing cars waiting for the disaster. --Factuarius (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually in this case probably right. Suitable sources are needed in order to present this issue neutrally in the article. Foreign popular press (including the Financial Times which recently suggested how Greece could temporarily withdraw from the Eurozone) just present snippets of poorly verified information and guesswork. We need a concrete expert analysis. If you are indeed an expert as you claim Mr 85.72.235.178, then maybe you could find something.--Ptolion (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a concrete expert analysis is needed, but I don't believe that an IP user with a rather racist bias is the best possible "expert" to do it, whatever a 2.5 months old sockpuppet thinks. But I maybe wrong. --Factuarius (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The 85.72 IP is almost certainly our old friend Xenos2008. Please don't feed him, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by engaging this person (though he does crack me up). Athenean (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Athenean, I thought it after his third post. Not to mention his IP[8] it had this very unique fingerprint οf racism, arrogance, and abuse[9][10][11] (to try to be polite). Actually I started my next post by saying Is that you Martin? but on second thought I choose to continue as to see how long would he hind his anti-Greek paranoia, and the confirmation came[12]. Some other smart guys didn't knew it or pretended didn't knew it as to persuade him to write and this immediately after he had expressed his anti-Greek paranoia. Try harder next time Martin. Or change internet provider.--Factuarius (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The whole world is aware of the difficult financial situation in Greece. Based on the above comments may I suggest something that at least addresses what the media have been suggesting and a brief discussion of who does and does not support this opinion. For example "Media reports throughout the world have suggested that Greece may be heading towards bankruptcy. The following may support this view 1. Standard and Poor's have labeled government bonds as "junk bonds" etc etc. In contrast there are many who believe that bankrupcy is unlikely. For example so and so says etc etc." I'm not an expert on the subject, but everyone except this wikipedia article seem to be discussing it. Regardless of whether or not you believe the media reports, please stay current and make the article a more complete and trustworthy source of information.
kerfuffle (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The link within the section is good. It directs the reader to a more detailed account of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernspores (talk • contribs)
Done. I find there is consensus for the motto to be included. However I have not cited a source for it yet. The links above point to the following [2] for me, which doesn't seem to have any information on mottos. If there is a better url, please let me know.
Not done. I appreciate the arguments for placing the hatlinks at the top, but I agree they look better in their current position.
