Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising

RfC: provocateurs

The consensus is against inclusion of the sentence.

Cunard (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence: "Anarchists, a small minority among protesters were branded as provocateurs by KNE as they were expressing slogans not directly related to the student's demands (i.e calling for sexual freedom, social revolution and abolishment of the State)" [1] be included in the article? Anyone who wants Kornetis book, I can provide a dropbox link.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not include. The fact that the anarchists took part, is already mentioned in the preceding subsection "14 November". The source for the suggested addition says that their role was marginal, so adding 40% more text to this very short subsection just to mention what is termed not only "a minority", but "a small minority", is WP:UNDUE. --T*U (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

T*U, thank you for your input, maybe I have not made it clear. The article should mention something about the provocateurs. Many parts talked about them, from the Communist Youth to the Junta Regime and other leftists parties. So is Kornetis. We have to mention them. Who were those provocateurs? The 40% more text is a real problem but it could be addressed by adding more text as well, instead of cutting of sourced material. Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

T*U, thank you for your input, maybe I have not made it clear. The article should mention something about the provocateurs. Ha, that's funny. Your RfC talks about the inclusion of a sentence. The RfC question that you wrote yourself does not mention "provocateurs", not even once. Is that an admission that your RfC is useless? Dr. K. 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse not! Maybe you didn't got it. The sentence is not only about anarchists. The sentence aims to shed light to provocateurs. The word was used by many parties. Most of them were referring to anarchists. Provocateurs are still a highly debated topic. Who were they? Should the article mention them? Yes it should in my opinion. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse not! Maybe you didn't got it. Ok, like I said, let the community decide if I got it or not. Maybe, after that, you can get it yourself. Dr. K. 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion Per T*U and per this is yet another unneeded and time-wasting RfC, when noone has supported inclusion of this sentence in the article in this talkpage. Please see discussion above. Again: Anarchists were a very small minority according to the source, yet their lifestyle and actions occupied about 40% of the small paragraph of 15 November, until the edit got reverted, even though pushed by edit-warring by the RfC OP. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The proposed edit is clearly aimed at promoting the anarchist actions in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Dr. K. 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A)Not UNDUE since Kornetis discuss their role in extent. B)Provocateurs have to be mentioned, they are notable C)We can add more info about the 15th of November D)"edit-warring by the RfC OP" = what's that? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. just for the record: It's not only WP:UNDUEWEIGHT but also synthesis and POV. The text is based in what two members of a communist party said in a interview about KNE & anarchists, and not the opinion of historian Kornetis. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. just for the record (2), as i wrote above only(!) before few weeks in this talk page:"Also, i saw that Kornetis talks about all student groups against anarchists, but here it is presented only from KKE members for one reason". Here the same operation. Kornetis says exactly This bombastic demand for unlimited sexual pleasure was rejected as sheer provocation by all student groups. Here is only about KNE. I can't write all the time the same things, when a user want to write his POV, and he doesn't want to correct his mistakes. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Αντικαθεστωτικός. I agree with your points. Your comment indicates an attempt at source falsification. If that becomes a pattern, it will be disruptive. Dr. K. 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you: An RfC is a process where the community editors are asked to comment to give their opinion. It does not mean that every time I comment you have to reply to me. You have called the RfC. Let the community respond to it. You, being the initiator of this RfC, stay clear and let the community reply to your RfC and do not badger respondents with the same points noone agrees with, that you made in the section above. Dr. K. 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it does not work that way, Dr K. I 'll answer wherever I feel it is appropriate. You have made your points, I have every right to answer. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of badgering. Be that as it may, please feel free to derail your own RfC by continuing to unnecessarily reply to any comment that opposes you, thus converting this RfC into your personal notebook of replies to every single comment made by other editors. Dr. K. 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

i think we discussed in previous sections. So if anyone want, he/she can read my opinion there. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: This is not enough. If you want your opinion to count in this RfC you have to express it in bold like the other users. It is not enough to tell others you have it in another section. Dr. K. 21:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Khirurg (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose a. its not correct presentation of the source( Kornetis says ALL the parties, here is only the stalinist party). b. its is a synthesis from primary sources(interviews) c. major WP:UNDUE when the same source says that anarchists had a marginal effect. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• fwiw, Kornetis has two whole pages (pp. 260–261) about the dynamics between anarchists and the rest of the group (including communists/leftists) so it wouldn't be undue weight to add a single sentence that speaks to that. Such a sentence could be more summative than the one proposed, though, e.g., that anarchists, who were a vocal, radical minority, were more outré in strategy than the more conservative student movement, with calls for sexual freedom, insurrection, anti-capitalism that had no currency with the larger majority. The rest of the group had more in common with student uprisings in the Third World/Eastern Bloc, fighting for the basic human/political rights à la Western Europe. (This is all backed in Kornetis 260–261.) Why is it worth mentioning? It's a segue to Kotea p. 21 (cited in the "Legacy" section): that while anarchists were a minority, the uprising became a symbol or rallying cry for later extremism/terrorism in Greece, so worth mentioning its origins. I'll also add that this discussion mirrors a line in Kornetis (p. 260): The anarchists' role has long been contested by all sides, being alternatively over- and underplayed. It is almost certain that their role during the 1973 Polytechnic occupation was marginal but highly controversial. If helpful, I can propose text that would summarize all of what I just wrote, but only if there is consensus. Such text would also fit better in some "Analysis"-style section rather than the description of events. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 12:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: That would definitely be a significant improvement to the article Cinadon36 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Czar:Your text is ok IMHO, and without Synthesis or POV, but if we should discuss the role of anarchists when they had a marginal role, why not discuss in the same section about Maria Damanaki (Kornetis pages 257-8) or some other participants who had a major role (as example the leader of provocateurs who was an EKKE and NOT an anarchist participant ? Why to write something about a small minority who asked for sexual freedom during the section of 15/11/1973? My suggestion is that we can add one last paragraph and write for everyone political party/movement who had a participation then. Anarchists, leftists, democrats, liberals, christians, students, parties etc. We can write also for the aftermath about the participants who were arrested and tortured, and who was hiding after the uprising.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the article could use expansion in general, but my suggestion was a response to the specific proposal. It makes sense to expand on the "agents provocateurs" in general, but it is still worth noting, whether only in the Legacy section or otherwise, how even the marginal participation by left radicals at the time left an outsized impression on later left radicals. czar 10:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Η εντυπωσιακή εμφάνιση ειδικά της ΑΑΣΠΕ (Αντιφασιστική Αντιμπεριαλιστική Παράταξη Ελλάδας), μετωπικής οργάνωσης του ΕΚΚΕ (Επαναστατικό Κομουνιστικό Κίνημα Ελλάδας) που είχε ιδρυθεί στο Βερολίνο, έδωσε μεγάλη ώθηση στη μαχητικότητα του φοιτητικού κινήματος.Οι αριστεριστές που δεν πίστευαν στην περίφημη «ωρίμανση» των συνθηκών, αλλά αντίθετα θεωρούσαν πως έπρεπε να επέλθει άμεση ρήξη με το καθεστώς, έπαιξαν κομβικό ρόλο στις καταλήψεις της Νομικής τον Φεβρουάριο και Μάρτιο του 1973 και βέβαια στο Πολυτεχνείο τον Νοέμβριο του ίδιου έτους. Sadly only in GreekHere. According to Kornetis EKKE was something very important and we should talk about EKKE. But again here the talking is about the marginal role of anarchists where in his article Kornetis is not even referring to them! As i said before the leader of provocateurs was an EKKE member.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός:, I agree with you- we should also discuss EKKE. The size of the article is 20KB meaning there is an abundance of space. Because some facts are missing from the article, does not mean that we shouldn't add anything else. That wouldn't be a constructive approach. Why don't you add a sentence or two on EKKE now? I am pretty sure nobody will object. Cinadon36 15:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you. First of all i think there is a misunderstanding. I think some users believe that provocateurs were indeed anarchists when in majority and their leadership they were Maoists/EKKE participants. So, i hope i made clear that anarchists had a marginal role as Kornetis suggested and some demands with a sexual connotation. If we stick with the sources we must discuss about EKKE before the uprising. Finally, we must discuss about anarchists -the true anarchists- in a distinct paragraph with the other participants as Christian Youths etc.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose based upon previous arguments of WP:UNDUE.StudiesWorld (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight. Barca (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Iakovos Koumis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Iakovos Koumis should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Iakovos Koumis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Stamatina Kanellopoulou" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Stamatina Kanellopoulou should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Stamatina Kanellopoulou until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)