Talk:Greece–Italy relations

History

I was hoping it here would be any information about their Ancient contact (The Latins, Etruscan and Greek peoples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.149.248 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

same religion,similar way of life,trading but not many interactions with each other.greeks had lived in sicily( Magna Grecia or "Μεγάλη Ελλάδα") and calabria, where there are still ancestors of greeks, see griko people. alexander conquered the east, and italy the west. after the death of alexander greeks occupated in the east and greece was weakened so romans invades greece, but because of the same religion and lifestyle greeks and romans managed to live together. so when constantinople(New Rome) was found it was a Greco-Roman empire. basically greeks and romans are the same people, not same race but very similar people (Una Razza Una Faccia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.80.35 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Unverified claim of Greek Orthodox in Southern Italy

At the end of the History section, I deleted the following [grammatically incorrect] excerpt:

There are around 180,000 Greek Orthodox or people of Greek descent living in Italy, with the majority centered mostly in southern Italy and Sicily. Also an approximation of 200,000 Roman Catholic Italians or people of Italian descent are living in Greece, the majority of which can be found in the Ionian Islands, western Greece and the capital Athens.

Aside from the fact that whoever wrote this didn't even bother to provide a source for these figures, the author of these sentences also makes a huge mistake of confusing "Greek" with "Greek Orthodox". The two are NOT the same. The Greek-speaking Griko community of Southern Italy is Catholic, mostly of Byzantine Rite but also Latin Rite. Venice, on the other hand, does indeed have an old [and very small] Greek Orthodox community, but it's mostly replenished by newly arrived Greek citizens, as Greeks in Italy have historically assimilated quickly. As for "200,000 Roman Catholic Italians or people of Italian descent" in Greece, this is also a shaky claim. It's true that there are many Italian citizens living in Greece, and Italians have indeed moved to Greece throughout the centuries. But the Greek state does not recognize them as an official minority and -apart from actual Italian citizens having recently moved to Greece- we don't know how many native-born Greeks may have some distant Italian ancestry; most such Greeks don't even consider themselves Italian, let alone know about their ancestry. Additionally, native Roman Catholics in Greece are mostly the result of Venetian and Genoese influence -rather than Italian immigration- and are mostly concentrated in the Cyclades (especially Syros and Santorini), not the Ionians. Ionian Italians completely assimilated and intermarried into the Greek Orthodox population. Skyduster (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for the removal of the political statement "Una Faccia Una Razza"

Hello! Greeks and Italians (mainly those who live in Southern Italy) refer to each other by the statement "Una Faccia Una Razza", which means One Face, One Race, and reflects the strong cultural bounds between the 2 ancient nations. While I may have no official governmental sources, I, however, have multiple sources from internet (newspapers in both countries, commonsfolk, etc). Many Greeks, in real life, including me, are referring to the Italians as brothers from ancient times, and many Italian friends of mine do the same. I don't know who added the "Una Faccia Una Razza" on the Wikipedia's article about the relations between Italy and Greece, but I believe, and I am confident, that this political phrase in fact reflects how close the cultural bonds between Greece and Italy are, and the shared historical relationships between the 2 nations since Roman times, the Renaissance, and up to the modern times. I do not see why this phrase should be removed, so please give explanation or sources that the Una Faccia Una Razza has nothing to do about Greco-Italian relations, before removing it. --SilentResident (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that you need to add a source that shows it's a common phrase. ... discospinster _talk 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends what kind of sources you want - you can find it here for example: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Una-faccia-una-razza/136826103022985 or in the lemma dictionary here: http://www.slang.gr/lemma/show/ouna_fatsa_ouna_ratsa_15449 This phrace is even used in movies such as the Oscar-awarded romantic film Mediterraneo (1991) - more info at the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102426/ . --SilentResident (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Una faccia, una razza" (one face, one race) is a phrase made up by the Italian fascist regime during occupation of Greece in WW2. They came up with it to convince the Greek people that the occupation of their land by the fascists was some kind of a good thing, because we share so much in common. We do, of course, (at least the Southern half of the peninsula), but at that time it was just some stupid propaganda. Despite it's in Italian language, the phrase is totally unknown in Italy by regular people.--Enok (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend Enok, I don't deny that such phrases are used by fascist or nazi regimes. Hitler has done the same for the Olympic Games - he used the games as a measure to promote his Nazi propaganda and the highness of the Aria race. But this does not means that the Olympic Games are a Nazi sporting event. The same applies for the Una Faccia Una Razza - it is not a fascist statement just because the fascist regime used it to advance its agenda. The fact that the politicians may use phrases or events to promote their agendas, is nothing new. --SilentResident (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid?! What do you mean? Do you think we have the same... faces? Or are we referring to biological races? By the way, we have different ancestry and different mentality, even a different religion. In Italy we regard as "brothers" or "cousins" other Latin peoples, such as Spanish and French.--Enok (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Enok, technically, the DNA of all southern European nations are the same - what differs is just the visual appearance - darker color of the skin for the people who are more to the hot South. This is evidenced even between Italians - the ones who live in Southern Italy and the ones who live in Northern Italy. But this is not the case here. And I don't know about that mentality thing, but judging from Italy's Berlusconism which is full of corruption, sex scandals and such, which is no different from Greece's neoellenic politicians, I dare to say that both countries share similar, if not the same, mentality on public (at least) affairs. Both Greece and Italy, unfortunately, are two European states that suffer from great levels of bad economic management and political corruption. And again, this has nothing to do with Una Faccia Una Razza. It is irrelevant. What I am saying, is that each person has its own opinion. And regardless of politics, such as the occupation of Greece by the Italian Fascist regime, there is an amount of Greeks and Italians who use the Una Faccia Una Razza and for them it has a positive meaning - not a negative one. For them, it highlights Italy's close relations with Greece and vise verse. As far as I am aware of, Greeks have great sympathy for their Italian brothers, and the modern day Greeks are very proud for their relations with Italy. Really, it could be unfair to judge the Una Faccia Una Razza for its use in politics rather than for its emotional meaning for the people of both ancient Mediterranean nations (well, for those who have heard of it and know it). It is not up to us to judge this phrase and its meaning for the other people.--SilentResident (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Enok please refrain from doing un-sourced revisions. Provide us with sources that the "Una Faccia Una Razza" statement: 1)Was founded by the Fascist regime, 2)Was solely used in propaganda, 3)It is no longer used in modern times. Can you please provide us with sources? Please give us sources so we can know. --SilentResident (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As I alreasy said, I don't need to provide sources to remove an unsourced statement. --Enok (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Then call for a consensus in the Talk page and let people vote if this phrase is not fitting within the scope of the relations among the 2 countries. Removing it just because it was used sometime long ago in propaganda, does not makes your arguments valid. According to Wikipedia's rules, if editors can not agree on an edit, they can call for a consensus in the talk page. And yes, you need sources, as I already presented you sources for the usage of this phrase in modern days - please read my previous comments. --SilentResident (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be removed because 1) there aren't sources that prove its relevance; 2) it's used only in Greece (because it was invented during the Fascist occupation).--Enok (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is used ONLY in Greece, then how comes Italians use it too? Why to find the phase in Italian newspapers? Then why we find this phrase on Italian pages, too? http://www.lindipendenza.com/due-grecie/ (published just one year ago, at 15 Feruary 2012). Isn't this an Italian-language article? I think you are causing Edit War which clearly goes against Wikipedia's rules. Please refrain from edit-revert wars, and present FACTS here in the Talk Page and wait for a consensus before making any edits, or I will report this behavior to the Wikipedia moderators. --SilentResident (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Enok, please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring - An editor must not perform more than three reverts in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit Warring is when an editor repeatedly restores his or her preferred version of an article - whether or not the edits were justifiable. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Thats why I ask you, leave this matter for some days and let other people express their opinions and get into a consensus about if we could accept the edit or not. --SilentResident (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Added reference. --SilentResident (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a newspaper, nor a reliable source, but an amatorial blog. Also, I suggest you to use an Italian translator to read what is written in that page. It's an article written by a Venetian separatist who makes fun of that phrase, because (literally) "even Northern Italians are forced to hear it during their holiday in Greece".--Enok (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that you are not willing to help us improve this content by adding sources, but to remove it just because you personally don't like it, even if others (such as me) disagree with its removal. To me, this is arrogance. Why you don't have some patience and let other people (beside us) express their opinions and see if its good to go with the phrase's removal, and or call for a consensus or whatever, before going further with our edits on this matter--SilentResident (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who (wikipedia editor) did add the phrase "Una Faccia Una Razza" to the article about Greece-Italy relations, but I think he did so because it is a statement that reflects the relations between the 2 countries. The Una Faccia Una Razzia is about the relationship of the people of both nations. Nothing more. I don't see why it could be removed from an article that has to do about this relationship. And judging from the fact that the phrase was here on this article for years and no one else has objected/disputed it so far, I am confident that, Enok, better leave it for now in the article, and let others decide if they agree with your position that the phrase could be removed. In this case, I won't object its removal from the article. But just removing the phrase because you don't like it / don't want it be there, probably for personal reasons, is not how Wikipedia works. Please wait for others express what they have to say about this (besides me and you), and I won't object further. --SilentResident (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have often heard Greek and Italian politicians using this phrase for Greek-Italian matters, but not sure if it's that well-known and popular among the local folks. --46.190.124.178 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm don't get me wrong but I doubt the una faccia razza is a fascist word at all. I believe it just reflects the feelings of the common people, the closeness of Italians with their european fellow Greek neighbors. These 2 people lived together in mediterranean for 3.000 years...--109.242.64.80 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(undent)

Despite the discussion above, we still have no solid sources for the origins, history, and meanings of the phrase Una faccia una razza. I can believe that it was an Italian Fascist slogan, but we still need some reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

i heatd peeps using it. i think it it denotes the unique friendship between greekos and italianos. but it could be best to made a new article for that and have all informasions abot that phrase go there. this relation page is abut relations not abut the phrase --85.75.146.22 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in Italy, and I only heard about this expression from my father, who told me how it is used in Greece, where he used to go for work. To my knowledge it is true that the expression is not used in Italy. Yet I don't see that as a reason to remove the whole text. This article is about Greece-Italy relations, so I would say it's informative. Maybe it can be amended. I see it has been added and removed way too many times. I'll put it back, and if necessary I'll request a dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino.andy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic. --Enok (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I filed a request to the dispute resolution noticeboard. In the meanwhile, if you like, you can explain why it's unencyclopedic. I'm not going to do this add and remove much longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino.andy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hope someone to send a warning to Enok for his disruptive edits on this page, i just checked the page's history, it looks like this user keeps reverting everyone else's edits w/t a good explanation and w/t reaching a consensus in talk page. Rev. his August 4 edits and restored last version by Midas02. --2A02:582:7420:3400:747D:8C56:13D3:8D1A (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tone of article

The present version of the article is full of unsubstantiated and unencyclopedic claims, reading like an elementary-school civics book. The article is about the diplomatic relations of the modern Greek state and the modern Italian state. Phrases in the lead like "strong historical friendship", "deep cultural ties", "perfect bonds", and the like belong perhaps in diplomatic communiqués, press releases, and schoolbooks, but not in encyclopedias. In addition, as discussed in the Talk section above, we do not have good sources for the origin and meanings of the phrase "Una faccia una razza", but in any case, it seems peculiar to call this a "political statement".

Further down, the article talks says "The historical ties between the two nations date back to the ancient times, when Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome laid the foundations of the Western Civilization. The subsequent common heritage also has strengthened further the bonds between the two people." This is historically naive in a multitude of ways. What's more, it is talking about the "bonds between the two people [sic]", but this article is about relations between two states. It is not the same thing. After all, consider, say, North and South Korea. They surely have incredibly strong and ancient cultural bonds, being essentially one people speaking one language. But politically, the two states are deeply antagonistic. Or consider the common (Eastern) Roman and Ottoman heritage of Greece and Turkey; did that "strengthen the bonds between the two peoples" politically?

I edited the article to remove some of these oversimplifications, but User:SilentResident has restored the text above. I would appreciate it if SilentResident would explain his rationale, and other editors would comment. --Macrakis (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The unexplained removal of information and sources, added by me and the other users, isn't how Wikipedia works, Marcakis. If you want to add something to enrich the article, feel free to do so. Removing information added by other people without an explanation, just because you "don't like the tone of it", is not how Wikipedia works, Marcakis. You have erased completely anything the other users have added to the article, and this is not a constructive approach by you. Complete removal of several edits by both me and the other users, regarding the historical (pre-WWII) relationships between Greek and Italian people which begun a long time before the actual formalization of modern diplomatic relations in 1800s, raises questions about your objectivity. The Greeks and the Italians didn't discover each other in modern times, which is what your edits implied before I reverted them, but have a long relationship that dates back to ancient times, when their ancestors, such as the Ancient Greeks, and the Romans came into contact. The past relationships played a major role in shaping the modern day attitudes between these 2 peoples as part of the European family. The Italians and the Greeks lived on the same coasts and neighborhood, for centuries. Italians came in Greece, Greeks went to Italy. Italians conquered Greek lands, and Greeks conquered Italian lands. A proper article can not be limited just to the in-war and post-war relations between the two governments while ignoring the cultural and historical background of the longstanding relations developed between the two people, as if these never existed. With simple words, when we talk about Greco-Italian relations, we can't talk just about modern relations between the Italian Government and the Greek Government and exclude the multiple levels of these relations: the historical, the social, the economic and the political. What this article needs is more information about these relations in depth, not less and even lesser information. You should help us improve the article instead of completely erasing anything added to it by other users. If you have any sources to prove that the relations between the two people and their governments are distant, and not as close and cordial supposed (or as much as the Governments claim to be), then you are welcome to provide us with sources supporting your theory, and apply the corresponding fixes to the article. As of now, the article specifically states that the current diplomatic relations between the countries are very close, and I presented an official source which mentions the close and cultural ties between the countries. Unless I missed something, I guess the official sources are not disputable, right? If you believe the Greco-Italian relations to be not so good or what the article writes is untrue, feel free to come with your own sources that prove otherwise, so we can weight all the information and act accordingly. --SilentResident (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Having been an editor on Wikipedia for over 10 years, and having contributed over 25,000 edits, I think I have some notion of "how Wikipedia works".

I have in fact explained why I made the edits I did. In particular, much of what I edited not only didn't approach the topic in an encyclopedic way ("perfect bonds", really?), but was not supported by relevant reliable sources. For example, a newspaper article about the opening of a small art show entitled "Ιταλία-Ελλάδα, Μια φάτσα μια ράτσα. Καλλιτεχνικές πρωτοπορίες και παράδοση" does not support the statement it is attached to ("More than two millennia of shared heritage and Greco-Italian relations strengthened the bonds between the two countries, which today are regarded as perfect and have led to the political statement "One Face, One Race" ").

The article is about the "bilateral foreign relations" of two states. Foreign relations are a matter of international politics, and are not the same thing as relations between peoples or cultures. As I mentioned in my comments above, North and South Korea share essentially the same culture, yet are political antagonists. Even if it were possible to talk usefully of relations between two peoples (I am not convinced it is), that discussion doesn't belong here, in an article about foreign relations.

Foreign relations are relations between states. Both the Italian and the Greek state were only created in the 19th century, and I'm not sure what bilateral relations would mean before that; are you proposing that this article also cover the relations of, say, Venetian Crete with the Ottoman Empire or for that matter the Battle of Settepozzi where some of the Italians (the Genoese) were allied with the Byzantines and others (the Venetians) opposed?

More relevant to this article would be, for example, Italian philhellene movements, even though they are not official state-to-state relationships. These groups were active throughout the 19th century, from before the Greek War of Independence through the war of 1897, and partly inspired by romantic notions of brotherhood. Interestingly, "The relationship between the philhellenism of the 1820s and antiquity was also highly ambivalent. Romantic philhellenes loudly proclaimed their rejection of a classical antiquity frozen in marble and explained that it was the modern Greeks that interested them."

Re "the official sources are not disputable", first of all, of course they are. They are not "entirely independent of the subject being covered", and therefore a priori not reliable sources. For example, the PR of China states that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. This is a very reliable source that the PRC considers Taiwan to be a province, but not a reliable source that Taiwan is in fact governed by the PRC, which it is not.

Anyway, in this particular case, I think you're referring to [1], which footnotes the statement "Due to the strong historical friendship and the deep cultural ties between the two nations, Greece and Italy enjoy very close diplomatic relations." This document does mention "close relations", but not "very close" or "perfect" relations. And it does not mention either "strong historical friendship" or "deep cultural ties"; in fact, under "political relations", it simply says "Since the Second World War, Greece and Italy have developed close relations as members of the EU and NATO." For that matter, since this article is about the mutual relations of the two countries, the Italian position is also of interest. For example, the material on bilateral cooperation on the Italian Embassy in Athens site mentions that "Le relazioni tra Italia e Grecia sono favorite dalla vicinanza geografica e culturale e dalla comune appartenenza all’Unione Europea, alla NATO e agli altri principali fori regionali ed internazionali. Tra i due Paesi vi e’ un’analoga visione, essendo la Grecia per l'Italia un partner importante, sia in prospettiva europea, in considerazione della comune matrice mediterranea, sia sul piano regionale, con particolare riguardo alla stabilizzazione dei Balcani e alla creazione di maggiori sinergie di cooperazione nel bacino adriatico-ionico (Iniziativa Adriatica)." Note that, though it refers to geographical and cultural proximity, it doesn't talk about ancient history, or use superlatives to define the relationship.

I certainly don't claim that Greek-Italian relations are hostile or distant. They are unquestionably good. Just that they shouldn't be described as "perfect". --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gilles Pécout, "Philhellenism in Italy: political friendship and the Italian volunteers in the Mediterranean in the nineteenth century", Journal of Modern Italian Studies 9:4:405-427 (2004) {{doi:10.1080/1354571042000296380}}, p. 406

PS I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith, and not raise vague "questions about [my] objectivity". What is that even supposed to mean? That I am some sort of agent for some hostile government that wants to sow discord between Greece and Italy? Who would that even be? Even the Vatican and the Patriarchate seem to be on pretty good terms these days. --Macrakis (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What we need is 1) information about the bilateral agreements in energy, tourism, exports, 2) more info about the cultural programmes adopted by the two countries (for example, a month ago, it was announced that there is a program in Italy about the learning of the Greek Language), by the two ministries of Culture of the two countries, and in the level of the European Parliament. 3) the cooperation between Italy and Greece in EU regarding the European immigration policies and sanctions against Russia. 4) The visit of current Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, 1-2 months ago, to Italy, and the visit of former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, 4-5 months ago, again to Italy. 5) We also need more details about the interactions between Greeks and Italians in Medieval and Ottoman times. 6) more details about the Italian presence and occupation of Greek islands during the two World Wars. Generally, the article is lacking on all fields, and any help is really appreciated. The readers visit the page and the only thing they read is about close relations but there are no details about the relations themselves. This is very problematic--SilentResident (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there are many more things that could be added to this article. I think all the points you mention above would be useful to add, except your point (5), since there was neither a Greek state (not the same as the Byzantine Empire) nor an Italian state (not the same as the Holy Roman Empire or other polities in Italy) in those periods. Things like the Massacre of the Latins, the Sack of Constantinople, and the Frankokratia are of course important historically, but again they don't seem relevant to the relations of the modern states of Greece and Italy.

Once we get to the modern period, I'm not even sure how we'd incorporate material on Venetian Corfu in this article, though I suppose it might make sense to mention the Corfiot Italian participation in the Risorgimento. --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead with the material you have, I think it will be very useful to include in this page! I too, myself made some improvements tonight - I added some of the missing high-level contacts between officials of the two countries, and also info about the Italian institute of Greece and the Greek Byzantine institute of Italy. --SilentResident (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Refers to"

Re. these reverts [2] [3]: the phrase "refers to" is being misused here. See WP:Refers to for an explanation why this kind of phrasing is a use–mention mismatch. Relations don't "refer to" relations; they are relations (and once you see that, you also see that the whole sentence is tautological). I'm going to reinstate the correct wording one more time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you about the WP:Refers to, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Good to know. I'll leave you a comment on your Talk page about the source from which I copied this phrase into this article. There are several relation pages across Wikipedia using this "refer to" and from which I copied into this article. --SilentResident (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Una faccia" redux

So apparently there is some longer history of edit-warring over that wretched "una faccia" meme. One notorious agenda editor, SilentResident (talk · contribs), has now edit-warred it back into the page at least 12 times over the last few years [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]; add to this another round dozen reverts by some IP editor and occasional throwaway sock accounts. The version reinserted has four footnotes, three of which are bare-url deadlinks without any bibliographical information, none of which looks like they ever pointed to anything reliable and pertinent. The fourth is a naked link to the works of Pausanias(!); how on earth did anybody think that could be used as a reference here?!

Now, looking around a bit, it turns out there actually is a bit of potential sourcing out there. From what I can find:

1. The reliable literature apparently tends to agree with the suggestion made by another editor above that the saying stems from the time of WWII Italian occupation. So, very far from being the product of millennia of peaceful common heritage, as SilentResident originally wanted to present it, it seems to have been more of a made-up attempt at finding a point of commonality between military occupiers and occupied.
2. The literature widely describes it as a purely Greek saying, invented by Greeks and falsely ascribed to the Italian language by them (it's probably no coincidence it doesn't actually rhyme in Italian, while it does in Greek or in Italian mispronounced with a Greek accent).
3. To the extent that Italians actually do use this saying, they apparently tend to use it in a wider sense of expressing a general "mediterranean" identity encompassing a wide range of other southern European peoples

Just a few random book links for anybody who wishes to pursue this further: [15] [16]

Does any of this belong in the article? Most certainly not, as long as it is as ridiculously mis-sourced as it is now. Plus, not as long as its connection to the topic of the article isn't clarified. This article is about the political and diplomatic relations between Greece and Italy. It is not about popular perceptions of ethnic/cultural affinities between peoples as expressed through popular sayings – unless somebody can show, with reliable sources, that there is a demonstrable connection between the popular perception and the political reality. The original version of this statement as edit-warred over by SilentResident until 2015 made the grandly naive WP:OR claim that the saying actually came about as the effect of "more than two millennia of shared heritage" (obviously, entirely unsourced). The current version is a bit watered down, but still claims that the saying is used to "describe the deep historical, cultural and ethnic closeness of the two peoples", still strongly implying that such a "deep closeness" is an actual reality (obviously, still entirely unsourced). This is obviously unacceptable.

I'll be removing that passage again. SilentResident: if you reinsert it once more, this goes straight into your current section at WP:AE with a request for wide-scope topic ban for long-term agenda edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect, this page is about the official relations between Italy and Greece. The term Una Faccia Una Razza is used on official level as well, by the Italian Office and the Greek Embassy of Rome, which confirms that this is not OR or just the fantasy of some editors here. From the moment the official authorities of both countries not only use it, but also make cultural exhibitions and other cultural events denoting the close cultural relations between the two people, why are you objecting to this? You are blatantly removing anything and you are accusing others for OR, even when SEVERAL sources are provided for this! I can't help but question a possible hidden agenda by you. Who are you to decide what is worth mentioning and what not? Please explain why official use of the term Una Faccia Una Razza should NOT be mentioned. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the Pausanias source, I agree with you. It is irrelevant and it should be removed. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I notice now that all the sources for the first of the two phrases, got broken (last time I checked this page, they were working) and their destinations are no longer available. In that case, you are absolutely right to remove it completely. My apologies for reverting your edits, I thought the sources were still working. I didnt realize the sources got broken and I should have noticed that sooner before reverting your edits. However, there is new information about it being used on official level, which should not be removed. The old phrase, which has only broken sources, I agree that it should be removed, or, at least, let the editors find new sources to back it. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for at least realizing this. I'll grant you that the exhibition you found is interesting enough to be covered in the article. However, the exhibition can't be used as supporting material to prop up independent coverage of the saying (as the primary topic of a section); rather, what I can imagine is having primary coverage of the exhibition (in the "cultural exchanges" section, where it belongs), and in that context simply mentioning the saying, to explain its title. To justify independent coverage of the saying as such, we'd still need a lot more: actual references to historians and sociologists explaining where that saying comes from, who uses it and what it signifies. The mere fact that the organizers of some exhibition felt it sounded nice as a motto doesn't help us here. I'll be making an edit in a moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. However, even if independent sources are found, I believe keeping the Una Faccia Una Razza as an idependent section within the article is way too pompous and unnecessarily grandiose and I believe it should be permanently merged into "Cultural Interaction" section. A mere phrase by itself is not worth keeping separate from the Cultural Interaction.

Edit: please be polite. First you tell me "Fuck it", then you tell me "Damn it" and now "notorious agenda editor SilentResident" is not helping. If you keep talking to me like that with a such language, I will report you. No matter what, you have no right to offend me like this! Please keep your temper out of your discussions with the other editors, otherwise nothing good can come out of this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greece–Italy relations. 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/20060717183746/http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Europe/Relationships+with+EU+Member+States/Italy/ to http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/Europe/Relationships+with+EU+Member+States/Italy/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Re this [17] revert: you need to learn what primary and secondary sources are. Newspapers aren't either the one or the other, as such. All sources can be either primary or secondary sources, depending on what you are using them for. When you are talking about language, i.e. the use of a word or phrase, then a primary source is any source where that phrase is simply used. A secondary source is one where somebody talks about the phrase, i.e. discusses/analyses its use. None of the sources you cited does anything like that. Simply quoting somebody who uses the term doesn't count here; the only thing that counts is actual analysis, making the phrase as such the object of the author's discussion. You were simply collecting bits where you found somebody using that phrase, and forming your own narrative and conclusions about the phrase on that basis. That's the very paradigm of WP:SYNTH. This will be reverted again; your usual instant-revert-warring response won't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, Future Perfect at Sunrise? If your concerns are really about whether a source is Primary or Secondary, then why did you tried to deny the phrase's usage in Italy? [18]. This is a whole level of hypocricy of your part. You denied that it is being used, and when I presented you not one, not two, but THREE sources confirming the phrase's use in Italy, you changed your arguments from "no use in Italy" to "source is primary or secondary". This shows WP:BUREAUCRACY of your part. I will wait for a third, impartial opinion on this about whether this phrase is not used in Italy or not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)