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.
== Etymology ==
== Etymology ==
Revision as of 21:07, 14 April 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greece article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
On British press calling us bankrupt.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaenia (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greece was the first area in Europe where advanced early civilizations emerged?
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.
Monshuai, I presume? Athenean (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
