Talk:Greece

Etymology

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)

-thrust me I am from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.200.205 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's exactly as Dimboukas said it. Check here for further info: Names of the Greeks. Kyriakos (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GDP Ranking and new values for 2009

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)

Greece bankruptcy

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!![1]. 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)

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"[2] 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)

personal attacks and boasting coming from a anonymous IP address... isn't it great? man with one red shoe 14:47, 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)

You Greeks assume that everyone is as full of bullshit as you are. Wrong. 85.72.235.178 (talk) 19:45, 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[3] it had this very unique fingerprint οf racism, arrogance, and abuse[4][5][6] (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[7]. 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)

On British press calling us bankrupt.

Στο σπίτι του κρεμασμένου δε μιλάνε για σκοινί. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.223.150 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree 212.54.223.150, As for the role the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs are playing with Greece and Eurozone see [8](in greek). And what Libération's J.Quatremer[9] 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[10](in english). See also Angela Merkel's yesterday statement about the scandal. --Factuarius (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The SCANDAL, is that according to REUTERS the US is profiting by 10% overvaluation of its currency due to this propaganda. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61M3MI20100223?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c0.174603:b31016210:z0 --212.54.219.232 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010, recent nationalistic edits

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.

Thank you. kedadial 01:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Language

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.