Talk:Greece

Needs map correction for data on Thrace

The map 'territorial gains until 1947' shows Western Thrace as coming under Greek rule in 1923, whereas other sources indicate that the date should be 1920. Both Eastern and Western Thrace were acquired by Greece in 1919-1920, and then Eastern Thrace reverted to Turkey in 1923 (correctly shown on map) -- per the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for 'Thrace' and the Wikipedia article on Thrace. Uranian Institute (talk)

Needs Section on Current Economic Crisis

Needs Section on Current Economic Crisis

75.166.179.110 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 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)

"The rest of the EU is not happy with Greek government policy".. this implies that there is someone in Greece who is happy with govt policy? Prepare for a long search. Richiez (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. You just quote idiotic press: the British economy has budgetary problems, and is also in a weak position because of banking dependency. The Greek economy has had a sustained history of indebtedness for no reason other than giving unnecessary jobs to political friends and corruption in the pension system, while doing nothing to support industry or even small family businesses. However, the situation with the Euro has made all of this even worse, and that is where the rest of the EU comes in. The UK was not in the Euro and its currency collapsed a year ago as a consequence of its weaker economy; the Greek currency is the Euro and remains the same, leaving Greece with no soluations to its longer term economic problems as well as no solution to its debt problems. Leaving the article as it is, hides all of this and is deliberate fraud, much as the cause of the mess in the real economy! 85.72.235.178 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote "This would be the equivalent of around 12.8 per cent of GDP, just in excess of Greece’s 2009 deficit of 12.7 per cent." make any sense to you? As for Britain not being in the euro-zone, exactly, that's why no country are feeling bound to come to rescue the British economy if will faced an imminent bankruptcy. And since you found Time's article an "idiotic press" why don't you apply there for a job as economist analyst? It will help the newspaper to have a less idiotic character, and you will help the Greek banks to increase the "Albanian deposits"[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)

The whole world is aware of the difficult financial situation in Greece. Based on the above comments may I suggest something that at least addresses what the media have been suggesting and a brief discussion of who does and does not support this opinion. For example "Media reports throughout the world have suggested that Greece may be heading towards bankruptcy. The following may support this view 1. Standard and Poor's have labeled government bonds as "junk bonds" etc etc. In contrast there are many who believe that bankrupcy is unlikely. For example so and so says etc etc." I'm not an expert on the subject, but everyone except this wikipedia article seem to be discussing it. Regardless of whether or not you believe the media reports, please stay current and make the article a more complete and trustworthy source of information. kerfuffle (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The link within the section is good. It directs the reader to a more detailed account of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernspores (talk • contribs)

Pending Changes

Who decided to put this article in 'pending changes'. And who is responsible for accepting or rejecting the new edits? Politis (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Map image link

There is a political map of Greece in the Geography section, which, when clicked, takes one to a significantly different version of the map. This is completely counterintuitive and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.187.144 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I've re-semiprotected this page, given the persistent vandalisms dealing mainly with the name of the Republic of Macedonia. I fail and the reason should be "Repeated ip-hopping vandalism related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia after a year of semi-protection. Looks like it has to be long-term protected, sadly." year, not hour. Thought I'd write it up somewhere, and yes, the heat must have done something to my brain for not being able to do one clean protection out of three tries :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that conventional semi-protection seems necessary due to the issue about the name of the Republic of Macedonia. In my opinion the pending changes protection that was applied on July 1 is not an adequate replacement for semiprotection. WP:PEND can't deal effectively with long-term POV-pushing by new editors on a well-known real-world dispute, since the history gets cluttered up with the making and the reverting of the same kind of change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

Is there such a thing as a "healthy Mediterranean diet". That sounds like POV to me. I have read recent reports suggesting that the typical Mediterranean diet isn't healthy at all.JohnC (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)