Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising

Peasants involved in the uprising

I deleted the word peasants. There were no peasants at the Athens Polytechnic uprising. The term "workers, peasants and students" is a cliche but looks too politicaly correct and most of all has nothing to do with truth. The fact is that the military junta had many followers between the peasants since the "donation" of all farmers loans.

Even if some farmers wanted to participate at the uprising that would be very difficult since there were no peasants in Athens and the events were really fast.

I think that there should be a seperate article on the junta of the Colonels. I can help, but my knowledge is rather limited. Or is there one already??

As the documetory films of this day show and the audio as well, in the Polytechnic School arrived representatives from the farmers uprising in Megara City as well as worker representatives from different unions -legal or illegal by that time. So, massive "peasants and workers" participation in the Polytechic School itself is not recorded but those days the whole country was on the move against Junda. Dkace 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the Junta

The Greek military junta was not really overthrown, but collapsed a little later under the weight of its unpopularity, incompetence, and, most important of all, its Cyprus failed coup attempt. It is arguable that the Polytechnic uprising quickened the junta collapse by dispelling the pretense of popular acceptance of the junta's democratization plans, which would probably have maintained an active role for the military in public affairs. Dianelos 07:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greek military regime collapsed after a "national disaster", just like the Argentine military regime and the Portuguese military regime. The respective "national disasters" were the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks in 1974, the re-conquest of the Falklands by the British in 1982 and the loss of the colony of Angola in 1974. (The latter involves the withdrawal of the Portuguese from the country, rather than a conflict, but the built-up radicalisation of the officer corps in the Portuguese army was the crucial factor in the overthrow of Salazar.) In so many words, the Greek military regime was quite powerful in 1973 and no "outside" force, such as student uprisings, politicians' protests, international condemnation, etc, could remove the junta from power. It is true that Papadopoulos was aware of the political impasse reached by his regime, and this is why he sought a "normalisation" of Greek politics through Markezinis. But, except for another military coup (as actually happened), nobody could remove him. Whether the Greek colonels were "unpopular" or "corrupt", and to what extent, is indeed irrelevant to the balance of power in 1973. The Gnome 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Students of the Athens Polytechnic killed during the uprising

This is one of the most controversial topics regarding the uprising: although several civilians (some of them children and even the case of an infant!) are documented having been killed in the crossfire of the Polytechnic uprising, there is no documented reference to any actual students of the Athens Polytechnic killed at the time. Despite this, in popular opinion tens (or even hundreds!) of students of Athens Polytechnic were killed. This claim has occasionally appeared in the Wikipedia artice too. Yet, this is not the case, and it does not pay homage to the memory of those who were actually killed to fabricate ficticious victims. It is interesting to note that every year on November 17 wreaths are lain on a monument within the Polytechnic that inscribes the names Athens Polytechnic students who were killed while fighting for freedom -- not in 1973, as there were none then -- but during the resistance in the 1940s. If anyone can provide verifiable references to Athens Polytechnic students who were killed during the Polytechnic uprise, please post them and I will acknowledge my error. But please refrain from any ad hominem attacks, I am only trying to set the record staight. Rastapopoulos 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been no official enquiry by a commission appointed by the Greek government, subsequently to the 1973 events. There is no official list of casualties. On the other hand, there have been numerous claims about killings, by people who submit they were participants in the uprising, witnesses to it, or well-informed about the events. A number of books appeared, after the fall of the military regime, containing pictures and personal data of various persons presumed to have died in the course of the uprising, such as student Diomedes Komninos. The consensus, even among supporters of the military regime, appears to be that people have indeed been killed, but the actual number and the circumstances of their death vary. Nonetheless, some officers of the army were convicted for crimes perpetrated during the uprising, such as Brig. Gen. Nicholaos Dertilis for shooting Michalis Myroyannis who was running away from a group of policemen (his own driver testified against him), in the trials subsequently held. The Gnome 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

rastapopoulos: i dont think theres any well documented evidence on the issue. from what i know (i.e. what i ve been told, read in secondary sources etc) we can only be sure that some people were killed during the events (more or less what is written in the article)- whether these people were literally inside the polytechneio or not, how many they where etc i really dont know. when i return i ll search for more, but i dont think i ll find anything more than what is in the article. --Greece666 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was never an issue whether the people killed in the uprising were students or not. The police was shooting to kill randomly in the streets of athens at that time, and this resulted in a number of deaths, although the exact number is disputed. That's a fact. The only reason to say that there was no student killed is to support the junta's official version that police was defending itself against 'anarchist elements' attacking police officers. This of course is a lie, as everybody knows that police snipers in nearby buildings were shooting to people at random. the article has few more problems

1. "1973 found the junta under Papadopoulos having undertaken a "liberalisation" process of the regime, which included the release of political prisoners and the partial lifting of censorship, as well as promises of a new constitution and new elections for a return to civilian rule. This created a power vacuum for leftist and generally democratic elements to undertake political action against the junta". "Liberalisation" created a 'power vacuum'? in what sense?

The answer about the victims of the 17th of November 1973 can be found on the 14/10/1974 findings of the prosecutor Mr Tsevas who has been put in charge by the goverment, in order to find what happened that night. His report is full and complete in order to provide all the facts of that night along with the name of the victims.

Any links, please? Or, if the text is not yet online, any sources that can be cited? The Gnome 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have personally given links to both Prosecutor-tsevas(14-10-1974) findings, Chief of police George Sabanis (8-2-82)findings none of which is contested by anyone and both widely accepted, but never edited the article myself. Here they are again: [1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.233.217 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If something is contested that is the number of not-proven deaths(Which according to word to mouth range in thousands). I can also provide links with pictures of the Ilenia incident if you plan mentioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.233.217 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturer and model of the tank

Anyone knows them, to include them in the article?

The tanks were the French-built AMX-30

A poor joke.. The military also call it "the student", because it made it in the polytechnic. A very bad joke.. The Tank however is actually kept inside the Centre of Training for Armored Unit Warfare in Avlonas (ΚΕΤΘ), in a small space designated as an armored unit museum, that is unfortunately not open to non military personel. They have also placed a relevant sign there, pledging the army's allegiance to the republic. I have seen it myself, so i took the liberty of correcting "reportedly kept". I was also the first to report on the type of the tank. I thought it was important because it seems many people believe it was a M48, US-made, Tank. I have heard that in the past young officers would be shown an M48, told it is the one, and order to attend to it, wash it etc. Military folklore I guess.

Citations needed

I would like to see some references regarding the following claims: 1. "According to a contested official invertigation..."- A source indicating (a) who it has been contested by, (b) on what grounds. Also, is there reason to believe that the views of those "contesting" the official investigation are being given undue weight? 2. "several civilians were left severely injured" - A list of these people, and a definition of "severe" would be helpful. 3. "...Ioannidis, a disgruntled Junta hardliner..." - A source identifying Ioannidis as a hardliner, and a source indicating that he was "disgruntled" (rather than, say, "overjoyed at the chance of assuming control"). 85.75.72.50 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the first claim ("contested investigation"), as it has not been substantiated with a citation despite being challenged for over a year 79.129.249.116 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

article needs cleanup and/or rewriting

i have just edited the article extensively. Not that it looks so much better now, but at least it doesn't spread the opinion of the greek far right and junta apologists. Let me explain myself:

1. "1973 found the junta leader Papadopoulos having undertaken a "liberalisation" process of the regime, which included the release of political prisoners and the partial lifting of censorship, as well as promises of a new constitution and new elections for a return to civilian rule. Opposition elements including Socialists were thus given the opportunity to undertake political action against the junta" During the so called liberalisation period, nothing really changed. Political parties were still banned, people were still tortured and in prison or exile and so on and so forth. Liberalisation in reallity was just words from the dictators, and maybe their reaction to the mounting international outcry against their regime and their atrocities. It is evident that, apart from Markezinis, almost nobody from the former democratic political regime colaborated with the colonels, cause they knew that it was a farce. So there is no logical connection between the uprising and the "liberalisation".

2. In the early hours of November 17, 1973, the transitional government panicked" Trantitional? in what sense? Nobody in Greece calls, or would call, the government of Markezinis as "transitional"

3. "Soon after that, Spyros Markezinis himself had the humiliating task to request Papadopoulos to re-impose martial law.[2]" Humiliating or not, that's irrelevant. And the refference link is not working, as most links

4. "According to an official investigation undertaken after the fall of the Junta, no students of Athens Polytechnic were killed during the incident. Total recorded casualties amount to 24 civilians killed outside Athens Polytechnic campus. These include 19-year old Michael Mirogiannis, reportedly shot to death by officer G. Dertilis, high-school student Diomedes Komnenos, and a five-year-old boy caught in the crossfire in the suburb of Zografou. The records of the trials held following the collapse of the Junta document the circumstances of the deaths of many civilians during the uprising, and although the number of dead has not been contested by historical research, it remains a subject of political controversy. In addition, hundreds of civilians were left injured during the events.[3]" Very problematic piece. It seems to support the popular far-right point that there was no actual massacre, but just few policemen firing cause "subversive elements" took advantage of the student protest to attack the police. But this is not true, of course. The police was just out of control shooting from rooftops against anybody. Also, Mirogiannis was not "reportedly" shot by Dertilis, he was actually shot and killed by Dertilis who was actually convicted of murder after the restorstion of democracy.

4. "Ioannides' involvement in inciting unit commanders of the security forces to commit criminal acts during the Athens Polytechnic uprising was noted in the indictment presented to the court by the prosecutor during the Greek junta trials and in his subsequent conviction in the Polytechneion trial where he was found to have been morally responsible for the events". This piece, together with the next, wants to support the other popular far right point, that Papadopoulos was the "good" guy, and Ioannides the bad guy. Even if this is actually written in the indictment, it is absolutely irrelevant.

5. "Others believe that the uprising was used as a pretext by Taxiarkhos Dimitrios Ioannides to put an abrupt end to the process of ostensible liberalization of the regime undertaken by Spiros Markezinis". These 'others' are only the Papadopoulos's apologists.

I also did some minor stuff. some more experienxed wikipedian should have a look. Thanx, Panos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.28.243 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

i just saw that some Dr.K. immediately reverted my edits, without giving any reason. Well done mate! I am not willing to engage in an edit war, so i'll take the matter to other editors. Thanx, Panos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.13.0 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Connection with the US Embassy?

The article currently states "The commemoration day ends traditionally with a demonstration that begins from the campus of the Polytechneio and ends at the United States embassy" under the Legacy heading. There is no mention of the US Embassy or the US at all in the rest of the article, which leaves me wondering what the connection between the uprising and the US is, and what would drive the commemorations to end there? Can anyone expand on this? 46.177.119.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi

There seems to be no need for this section. it is linker earlier and if someone is wondering what it is they will go to the link. while this event did lead to the Metapolitefsi it would be silly to say that it was the sole reason or even really a big one. most would agree the invasion of Cyprus was a bigger factor. I nominate this section for deletion

Metapolitefsi

There seems to be no need for this section. it is linker earlier and if someone is wondering what it is they will go to the link. while this event did lead to the Metapolitefsi it would be silly to say that it was the sole reason or even really a big one. most would agree the invasion of Cyprus was a bigger factor. I nominate this section for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Replacing historic events with badly-written English

I have restored some sanity to the text of the article by restoring historic and well-documented events. These events about the students calling themselves the "Free Besieged" and the events describing the legendary radio station of the students with the historic call "Etho Polytechneio" were blanked without even an edit-summary. To add insult to injury they were replaced by horrible prose in broken English such as

Military Junta came in power in 21st April 1967. In 1973, a modest liberatation plan was set by Junta stongman, George Papadopoulos. Meanwhile anti-dictatoral student movement was growing and youngsters and police utilize brutal methods- tortures among them- in order to confront the threat.

I don't mind expanding the article, but 1. Do not touch the historic stuff as mentioned above. 2. Do not add material in broken and incomprehensible English and expect others to clean up after you. 3. Propose the material on the talkpage and let others help you clean it up, *before* you insert this broken English stuff into the article. Dr. K. 01:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC).

• "Etho Polytechneio"[5] is not a Reliable Source. We need peer-review secondary sources in history-related articles.
• Badly written English, is not a reason to revert. If you wish you can improve the article or ask for assistance.

So, unless there is a valid objection, I will revert to this version [6]. Dr.K removed well-sourced text, here is the diff. [7] Cinadon36 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

is not a Reliable Source. We need peer-review secondary sources in history-related articles. Absolutely not. For a quote like this, a newspaper of the era is perfectly adequate. Go to RSN to find out instead of starting WP:EDITWARs. Badly written English, is not a reason to revert. If you wish you can improve the article or ask for assistance. Definitely not. I am not going to clean up after your nonsense English, neither are you allowed to deface the article with incomprehensible language. Dr. K. 06:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's irritative language. If you do not wish to cleane up an article, there is this project. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I mean. "Irritative" is not a common form, "irritating" is better. "Cleane" is misspelled. You go to the guild to ask them for their help. Perhaps they have the time to give you a tutorial. I don't. Dr. K. 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You should write a letter to Merriam Webster explaining their wrongdoings. [8]. So, next time, open a dictionary before lecturing. PS-I understand you performed a google search.[9] Cinadon36 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If you understood what I told you you would not be defending your clumsy terms. Your reply suggests that your learning curve has stalled. Dr. K. 07:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You told me "Irritative" is not a word. [10]. Anyway, bye. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to dig into the history of the page to find words that I corrected before you replied, just to prove out of spite that I told you something, although I did not. I repeat once again: "irritative" is not in common use. It's clumsy language. Learn something from that, instead of doubling down on ignorance. Dr. K. 07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not clumsy. Being uncommon does not make it clumsy. Insisting on your mistake is not pretty clever (but I am not surprised here). We 've departed from discussing the article though, so have a nice day. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistake? Let me make it more clear then by repeating the same example from the non-English that you edit-warred into the article:

In 1973, a modest liberatation plan was set by Junta stongman, George Papadopoulos. Meanwhile anti-dictatoral student movement was growing and youngsters and police utilize brutal methods- tortures among them- in order to confront the threat.[2]

Can you spot the atrocious syntax, spelling, and grammar? Can you correct it? If not, why don't you try testing Simple English Wikipedia? Because, as it stands, you are trashing en.wiki. And with silly comments like Insisting on your mistake is not pretty clever and sillier edit-summaries like this you think you are being clever, instead of what you are actually being, which is WP:CLUEless to say the least. Dr. K. 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite the contrary my dear. I 've added Kornetis analysis (Berghahn Books). You have added news247, neaselida.gr and lifo.gr. Spot the trash. Silliest comment on this thread is "Irritative" is not a word. Who thinks of him as WP's Dean is pretty clear. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

But you are not replying to my question, so I will copy and paste it from above, one more time. After that, I will revert that piece because obviously you don't understand what you are writing. So, one more time before I revert your nonsense non-English paragraph which you refuse to discuss:

In 1973, a modest liberatation plan was set by Junta stongman, George Papadopoulos. Meanwhile anti-dictatoral student movement was growing and youngsters and police utilize brutal methods- tortures among them- in order to confront the threat.[2]

Can you spot the atrocious syntax, spelling, and grammar? Can you correct it or at least explain what you are trying to say? If not, why don't you try testing Simple English Wikipedia? Because, as it stands, you are trashing en.wiki. Dr. K. 09:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:, i'll give it a shot with a copyedit, the content does expand the article but requires a fresh pair of eyes to make it readable. Just for the record i was asked on my talkpage to do a grammar/spelling overview. My edits to the article will relate only to that.Resnjari (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Resnjari. However, next time, can you mentor this guy so that you correct him before he adds this crap into the article? I would really appreciate that. Thank you for your help in this. Dr. K. 09:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:, @Cinadon36 has his heart in the right place. Maybe use of their sandbox or at least running it through a spell check in a word document before adding to the article might be the way to go. @Cinadon36:, i use a Firefox browser for the internet. It has a built in spell check that shows you spelling mistakes underlined in red. Like this when you open a Wikipedia page to edit, if you misspell words it will show you. It goes to some way to limiting headaches, although on grammar, a word document program like Microsoft word also shows you some grammar mistakes (not all) as well to correct (underlined in blue or something like that). Overall interesting article. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Resnjari, you are very kind. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

All good. Happy editing. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, I don't think this is a matter of spelling alone. As my highlighted text shows, it is also a matter of grammar and syntax, that cannot be corrected by spell checking. For example, ...and youngsters and police utilize brutal methods- tortures among them- in order to confront the threat. seems to imply that both police and youngsters used torture to confront the threat. This is absolute nonsense. This person edit-warred this crap into the article, despite the warnings. He also engaged in WP:NPAs both in this section and his edit-summaries. That's WP:CLUEless WP:IDHT WP:BATTLE editing, and it is not sustainable. Dr. K. 17:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the grammar and spelling issues as best i could. The sentence highlighted is no longer in that form and so on. I can't be involved further if the issue is about content. Its because i think then it would cross the line as i was not involved in editing this article and was asked only to make grammar/spelling edits which i considered neutral on my part and before i made them i was upfront and stated my position in the talkpage. The only thing i can say is if the source meets RS and refers to those things, then i guess it has a place in the article. How and what form that is to be, you guys need to work it out in the spirit of good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Resnjari. But, of course this does not even start to describe the disruption caused because this person also repeatedly erased seminal aspects of the uprising such as their characterisation as "Free Besieged" after a famous poem by Solomos and also the legendary call of their radio "Etho Polytechneio". He also attacked RS and demanded only peer-reviewed papers as sources, something that is patently WP:CLUEless. He also used mocking edit-summaries about the RS. It was a real tour-de-force of editorial incompetence and WP:BATTLE. Dr. K. 18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If this rude behaviour of Dr K. goes on, I will report him at ANI. (Personal attack removed). "Etho Polytechneio" source is not RS. But I do wish to go on with this flame. If someone engages with a rude and uncivil user for too long, he riskes turning himself into a likewise person. That's why rudeness is a problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest. But watch for a giant flying object coming your way. By the way I removed your PA. Do not reinstate it. Pointing your disruption is not an attack on you. It's a learning opportunity. Do not cast WP:CLUEless WP:ASPERSIONS. Dr. K. 18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you are being disruptive and have been (Personal attack removed) all day long.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And another removal of your aspersions with a warning on your talkpage. Dr. K. 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks guys, just forget the other personal stuff and start again. Are the sources RS and are they relevant to the article, including their content? If so, how best does one convey that in the article. If you guys work your way from this angle, more will get done then wasting energies on other things. That's my take on it.Resnjari (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Res, you are probably right. Dr.K. sorry if I upset you. I will resist from commenting any further at this thread. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for more fake news. You have resisted me every inch of the way and your multiple WP:NPAs still litter en.wiki. No need to act contrite. I don't think anyone is impressed. Dr. K. 03:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)