Talk:2015 Greek bailout referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Barlow (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 10 July 2015 (→‎Palmos poll (again)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do not merge

Do not merge this article with Greek government-debt crisis. That article is too large already and if the referendum will be held it is notable on its own. --Gerrit CUTEDH 00:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the next 3 days there will be a lot of new references and data. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a referendum will be worth an individual article if it actually happens. If it gets cancelled, this can be merged though. Number 57 00:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should not be merged. The article on the referendum is sure to grow significantly in the coming days and with its significant global implications definitely deserves its own article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous contributors. Dimboukas (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree it shouldn't be merged because the other article is already too long and this one will probably be filled with polls, results by region, opinions of each party, consequences, etc. Wykx (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is too important. There no reason to continue this discussion. Someone must soon remove the merge labels --Odythal (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Renamed

I propose that we rename the page to Greek bailout referendum, 2015. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The referendum (if held) will be yes/no to the renegotiated terms for completion of the 2nd bailout program (with prospects for a 3rd additional follow-up bailout program - introducing significant debt relief and prolonged economic support - being conditional of a prior successful completion of the renegotiated 2nd bailout program). If the answer is "no", the end result will not be the opening up of a new negotiation round for a third type of renegotiated "economic reform program". Instead a "no" will equal a "no to continued bailout support (resulting in Greek sovereign default, capital controls and a potential Grexit)". Hence, it seems to make sense and be much more accurate to refer to the event as the Greek bailout referendum, 2015. Danish Expert (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I briefly started the Greek bailout referendum, 2015 article before discovering that there was already an article with a somewhat less applicable name. Economy is too broad. Greece will still have an economy no matter the outcome of the referendum. You cannot not have an economy. You can not have a bailout. --Gerrit CUTEDH 10:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: That would be much more precise.. and who knows there could be others coming Wykx (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as an administrator deletes the 'Greek bailout referendum, 2015' article and this article is moved there afterwards. Dimboukas (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am admin and I can histmerge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support: Was going to come and suggest this myself! Very glad to see others have got the ball rolling, the current title isn't really very accurate, while the question the Greek people are being asked is quite broad calling it a bailout referendum would be much more accurate than an economy referendum Guyb123321 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Greek bailout referendum (without 2015) as a better title, since this is the only one of its kind so far. Siuenti (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 is required as per the relevant naming convention, WP:NC-GAL. Number 57 20:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support then Siuenti (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Misleading polls paragraph

The paragraph concerning the polls is misleading, the question asked should more emphasised — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlUgo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polls do not refer to the referendum

I am referring to this state of the article. Me and User:Impru20 have tried it to reword it so that it is more clear what it is about, however I maintain that as the polls do *not* ask about the referendum in question and in fact have been conducted in the period between 24th-26th June before the referendum was announced on 27th of June, they should not be listed in this article as they give misleading impressions, no matter how well it is explained what they are about. Already some other wikis have taken the table as it is without any further explanations, and as if it is a poll about the referendum vote, which it is not. Gts-tg (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polls refer to the same matter asked about in the referendum (agreement yes or not), but I agree it be shown in a proper rewording (since while technically it is the same issue, it is not the referendum question). They don't give misleading impressions, they show a state of opinion recorded before the referendum announcement, at a time when the Greek government was trying to reach an agreement. If this needs to be further explained, please do so, but I believe it is already made clear that the polls are made before the announcement. Also, please, stop adding the "<<newspaper>> commenting on <<pollster name>>"; it is much simpler this way, as it avoids having a lot of references with very long texts in case there are many polls, and it is also the way that it is used in ordinary Greek vote intention opinion polls.
Btw, what other wikis do is up to them. Impru20 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do not refer to the issue at hand, they refer to whether people would accept to an austerity deal with the institutions that the government would be in agreement with, this really is not the same thing. It makes no sense to list a poll that was conducted before the referendum was announced and it has to do with something else than the question of the referendum and the conditions created post-announcement Gts-tg (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of reverting edits, can you actually try to elaborate your argument in the article instead of insisting on making things unclear? I have just added an attempt to try to explain the difference between polls. You insist on the "<<newspaper>> commenting on <<pollster>>" without explaining anything, and I understand people in the English wikipedia don't understand Greek enough for them to be dispatched to those articles. Impru20 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Instead of reverting edits? You are the one that reverted 4 times (2 reverts + 2 manually) not me. Apart from the issue that the polls should not be in the article, all I did was to turn the direct links in the text into references, and explain that they point to the respective newspapers commenting poll results. As the links stand now they look as if they point directly to the poll companies themselves. People in the English wikipedia understand English enough to read "Proto Thema newspaper commenting on Kappa Research results" in the ref text, that was all there was. Now they just click on the link and end up in a Greek text webpage that do not know how to read, because there is no text to inform them where the links point to. Gts-tg (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who started reverting edits, and had been doing so by 4 times. "As the links stand now they look as if they point directly to the poll companies themselves". The source is the pollster, independently on where it's published. Furthermore, as the newspapers shows images showing the polls' data, it is more than simple "commenting": they "show" the data. No just comments. You are trying to complicate a very simple issue with no reason and with no benefit. "Now they just click on the link and end up in a Greek text webpage that do not know how to read, because there is no text to inform them where the links point to". So? With your idea would people automatically learn Greek to read those articles? It that's your justification, then really it does not make any sense. Those articles would be in Greek whether you say it is the newspaper commenting the polls or not. The pollsters are the ones that are, and your edits don't help people understand Greek. A proper solution, maybe, would be to explain the content of those in the article, which can be done, and would have much more sense and would be more helpful. Impru20 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a) Look at the history on who started reverting and how many reverts were done, yeah?,
b) you are attributing things to me I did not say, read what you wrote first please
c) I will be waiting for further comments from other people apart from the other 2 that have also pointed out the obvious.
I am not going to comment on anything else Gts-tg (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see it. You changed my edits, then I reverted you. Then you reverted me and I reverted but trying to make some specifications. But you reverted it again, and then I tried to further add Notes and explain. But you keep insisting on not doing anything to help, except reverting others' edits. I have just received a comment from a guy asking me for help because you and other user are insisting on removing the polls from the Greek version of the article. I have made a further edit now to the article, where I believe it is left very clear that:
1) The polls are previous to the referendum's anouncement.
2) The polls are related to the referendum theme, but don't ask on the referendum question and have different answers. This has been corrected.
So please, make constructive edits. If you say that things need to be explained, then God, go out and explain it yourself, and don't wait for others to do the job for you, nor try to make superficial edits that do all but solving the issues you yourself explain here. WP:BOLD. We can't remove things just because you don't like it the way they are explained; do something yourself to contribute making things seem clearer and for people to understand what those Greek articles say if that's your issue. Impru20 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are really taking it too far and you should stop here. Just stop here please, I cannot read any more falsities. Gts-tg (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Falsities? Oh please. If you don't have arguments, that's it, but just don't hinder others' contributions, please... Anyway, I give this discussion for concluded, seeming that the current solution seems to be more explanative than before, and than there is no need to engage in more fruitless discussions. Impru20 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got a ton of arguments that unfortunately noone will read at the top, and obviously you didn't either. Now be a good lad and go do some constructive edits, and if you say that things need to be explained, then God, go out and explain it yourself and don't wait for others to do the job for you, nor try to make superficial edits that do all but solving the issues you yourself explain here. WP:BOLD. We can't remove things just because you don't like it the way they are explained; Yeah? Let's see how you like your own medicine Gts-tg (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are keeping removing the polls from the Greek version of the article, from what I can see, so obviously you must be using different "arguments" here and there. And using different arguing is the same than having no arguments, since it is not possible to defend one thing and the contrary at the same time. I'll just ask you to act with civility and save for yourself expressions like "good lad" nor acting with a childish behaviour. I'm not going to enter in personal grounds here. I'm just trying to contribute to the Wikipedia the best I can and to edit articles so them show as much relevant information as I can, but as I already stated above, I'm pretty much open to suggestions that help improve the articles, and as of now, I believe the current revision does the best of it to solve all issues exposed in this discussion. So, if you have any further issue on the referendum-related theme to discuss it in a rather civic way, propose it here. If not, then fine. I'll just not give you any "medicine" nor will act like you do, since this is not the site for that. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis is an admin on both en and el wiki, so I think he is in a position to tell what has happened, because you are really taking this way too far slandering me and claiming things that are not true again and again while posing as a model user. In the meantime, why don't you go and do some constructive edits, and if you say that things need to be explained, then God, go out and explain it yourself and don't wait for others to do the job for you, nor try to make superficial edits that do all but solving the issues you yourself explain here. WP:BOLD. We can't remove things just because you don't like it the way they are explained; Gts-tg (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then let Magioladitis judge both of us if that's your wish. I don't know what is it that I say that is not true. In any case, your own behaviour would also have to be scrutinied, however, so I'm really unsure if you are really wanting to bring this that far on an already solved issue, just because you have become frustrated by something and keep repeating the same comment over and over again. I'm not commenting anything else here with you, however, as this does not contribute to anything. Impru20 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll just ask you to act with civility and save for yourself slandering claims while not continuing to act with a childish behaviour. I'm not going to enter in personal grounds here. I'm just trying to contribute to the Wikipedia the best I can and to edit articles so them show as much relevant information as I can, but as I already stated above, I'm pretty much open to suggestions that help improve the articles, and as of now, I believe the current revision does the best of it to solve all issues exposed in this discussion. So, if you have any further issue on the referendum-related theme to discuss it in a rather civic way, propose it here. If not, then fine. Oh, and make some constructive edits too. Gts-tg (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw while honing those constructive edits of yours, have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing with regards to the person coming over to you about the Greek article and you making it an issue here as a means to discredit me, all the while while you do not know what you are referring to. Gts-tg (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Constructive edits of yours". When I talked on constructive edits, I talked on the article itself, not the talk page (obviously). You have taken a personal stance on this, it looks, and that's not appropiate. You put on a lot of problems saying that English people would not understand Greek, yet you did nothing to explain in the article what the Greek text actually meant. That's it, you did nothing to solve the issue you yourself complained about, yet kept removing my own edits when I tried to do so. You kept pushing forward a edit that did not help at all in that sense as a solution to the issue, and now you criticize me despite having secured a compromise solution for all, and do it in a childlish-like manner: repeating over and over again my comments. No arguments. No issues. Just childlish-like behaviour.
Btw, I have not answered that guy, nor I'm making his complain an issue here. The issue would be your own stance on the matter, since you take different positions here and there. I just read that guy's comment and took a look at the Greek article's history and saw that you kept removing the opinion polls each time they were added. Specially seeing that right here in this article we seem to have a compromise solution for English people to understand what those polls mean, I don't know what your motivation for removing the polls in the Greek wikipedia (where surely they would understand it, yeah?) while making weird edits here that don't solve the issues you yourself explain and prevented me from doing so. Now, you maybe can just do something to port over the current revision in this wikipedia to the Greek one rather than removing what others' edit just because you are not mature enough to accept others' opinions. You are being rude and disgusting to others without any necessity, and if there was any doubt, you insist on it here acting like you do. If you have an issue, come and put it forward, just don't act like this.
The polls show the state of Greek opinion just before the referendum's announcement, so it will surely be interesting for people to check how the Greek public opinion evolves after the announcement and as the referendum date gets closer. Even so, both of them were published after the announcement, and the media are treating them like if those were actual referendum opinion polls (which they aren't, but they are giving them that condition). It has been clearly reflected in the article that the polls are previous to the announcement. It has been clearly stated what the questions and answers on each poll were. It has been clearly reflected that those were done before the referendum announcement could affect public opinion, but that in any case those are related-issues as, despite not asking on the specific referendum agreement, they do ask on whether Greek people were in favour or against an agreement before the announcement, when the Greek government's stance was in favour of an agreement before it was forced into the contrary by the tight bailout conditions. Greek opinion may remain the same or may change as a result, but that change, if it happens, would be relevant to be shown.
Any objection? Any issue to be put forward? Any constructive proposal to be made? Or will you answer me with a repeat of this comment and/or another rant? I don't even know why are we continuing on this discussion when the issue is already seemingly solved~; just because you want to have the last word by repeating the same comments over and over again. If you have any issue, explain it with education, but I've made my stance pretty clear, I have not lied at anytime and, so far, I'm the only one that has tried to do something to solve the issue presented here. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, carry on like this, the horse raced past the barn fell, and the rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt sums it up. Constructive edits, keep them up Gts-tg (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The polls do not refer to the same matter. The Kappa Research question was whether people want the Greek government and the Institutions to comprise or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gts-tg, Impru20 the section bseems to be in a better state now. I won't check for edit warring. I am sure that you bot acted in good faith and it seems we found a middle ground. In my opinion, the polls are related to the referandum but are not about it and I think now it's clear for readers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis I agree and respect your input, as the argumentation was not so much for how the section ended up being after me and the other user improved it, but rather for some serious conversationalist incompatibilities between me and the other user, and for which I see no merit in pursuing further. For reference purposes though, the user started being reactive in here once receiving this message in his personal page, which probably came from the banned for edit warring IP in el wiki, who claimed that content was being removed for no reason although this is not the case in the talk page. Gts-tg (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gts-tg thanks for the heads up. Still this is not a problem since the section is being formulated by consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with regards to the section and concensus, the others bits were just for reference Gts-tg (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I "started being reactive" (if that's what you call it) when you started ranting on me with such a contempt, telling me that I was telling "falsities", repeating my comments without any argument and such; and not on the basis of any comment by other user. The comment of that user only led me to question me about your double way to handle things in different wikis on the same issue, that's all. As it is now, the issue is solved (as it has been since the current revision of the article was edited, as you say), so I don't understand your need to impose your ego here on an issue where we all have agreed on an understandable and comprehensible format. Don't atribute me double intentions. Judge yourself if your own behaviour in this discussion has been the most appropiate and don't blame others for it. That's it. And thanks to Magioladitis for his intervention. Impru20 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bob, how about working on these constructive edits? Gts-tg (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Much more constructive, indeed. ;) Now, let's go to serious matters, would you? Wikipedia is not a chit-chat space. Impru20 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it looks great now, I had to fix it of course as you accidentally mistook my edit for yours, so I placed it where it belonged. Gts-tg (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely great now. Discussion closed for me. A small advice: mature. Or I'll have to report you so the admins force you to do so, pal. Seems you don't understand when to end discussions, don't you? Another advice, read this: WP:PERSONAL and WP:HARASS, so that you get accostumed to act civilly. Definitely, this is my last comment of this absurd discussion. Impru20 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, show me the way and I will follow Gts-tg (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever deserves it. Despite (or perhaps because of) their limitations, these polls are some of the most useful bits of info I have come across anywhere concerning the crisis, and omitting them would have been a major disservice to me and other interested readers.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support to remove this paragraph. The polls before the announcement of referendum refers to a different question. As shown in this text (with tables, colours and bold font), it is strong misleading information and must be removed. (despite the above explanations and improvements, the reader's eye stands mostly to the tables and receives inaccurate impression) --Odythal (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal. The polls are obviously quite relevant to the subject of this article. Just because they don't ask precisely the same question as the referendum, does not negate their intimate relation to the subject. The polls are very notable, having received widespread coverage in the media in relation to the referendum, and excluding them would be a disservice to readers. TDL (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Government demonstration?

Should the pro-government demonstration on Syntagma Square today be added to the article as background info? If done so it would surely be wise to create a "Background" section, as the article is becoming longer and longer now. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's less than a week for the referendum to take place, no need to rush. A background section as well as other sections can be created after the referendum result, having all kinds of information in there. Gts-tg (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, we don't need to expect for the referendum to take place in order to add information about events that have already taken place... In any case, it's a way to better organize information, as we have a maybe too large introduction section as of know which will potentially get larger as new events happen until July 5th. Impru20 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that this is an article about a future event. So placing even more info about an event that hasn't even taken place yet, might not be a wise approach in the context of Wikipedia. There are already liberties taken with regards to placing polls that are not about the referendum itself Gts-tg (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum has been already called, so it'll be held on Sunday with certainty now. And the demonstration has already happened, so it's a past event (not a future one). My suggestion is to expand on the context as events happen, not to guess future, obviously. But ok, let's wait some time, just to see what happens. Impru20 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand it's in the past, but it's not the main event itself, side events are quite recent, and things are quite volatile as well (in all meanings of the word). I think it is better to be conservative at this stage, and once it settles down a bit more, get more liberal. Gts-tg (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, this is not to say that I am necessary against inclusion, I believe you will act in good faith in what you will choose to do, but whenever you are working on this article please keep in mind it is a really important and really in the short term event that can get one of heated/inaccurate/false very quickly Gts-tg (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polls tinkering and unreliable links

User:Impru20 keeps on tinkering with the polls, using unreliable links + in a language he does not understand + even polls that have not been published yet(!) but some blogs are commenting on them with regards to what they will show once published..., and doing original research based on his own understanding of the numbers that should be used. I am at loss with regards to what he gets out of this, why he insists so much, but really, I am not going to be the one that takes the hit again this time around, the community should step in and have their say. Gts-tg (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Firstly, the GPO poll image says it clearly: http://air.euro2day.gr/cov/arsenis_2015/GPO.jpg. YES vote = 47,1%. NO vote = 43,2%. You, however, keep insisting to add those "rather Yes/NO" vote to the "Undecided" category. THAT would be original research, as the poll or the data does not suggest anything like that. Then, you keep removing the Palmos Analysis poll on non-sense grounds, when the data has been already published and it's out there in several sources.
Secondly, could you stop insulting me? It's the second time you do this (the first time you showed a very clearly "mature" way of thinking. People can check the discussion above to see what do I mean). Do you have a problem with me or something? You are taking this to nigh personal grounds, and attribute and intention to... getting something out of this? It is you the one who keeps reverting my edits and changes and removing others' edits. If you keep so personally involved on this I'm going to have to report you. This does not need to be taken this personally and uncivilly, and surely, I don't have to stand your childish-like manners. Impru20 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blog.gr and a bunch of other blogs and personal pages (!!) that comment on some poll that has not been published yet are not reliable sources. With regards to the GPO poll please post the link as it is in the table, this will take you to the source where it has big bold letters about the percentages in the head title and in the text, instead of a POV interpretation of the results (I've already explained my rationale in the edit summaries). Use sources whose language you understand too. It's not personal, but really dissapointing how things like the above are treated as acceptable in en:wiki. Gts-tg (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Greece, most sources regarding opinion polls usually come in Greek. It's not my fault, so sorry about that. But there's something very useful called "traduction" which help us in these ways. This is the English wikipedia, but we can't pretend all sources about all themes in the world to be in English, and specific opinion polls for countries usually come in that country's language. Don't treat like if I'm someway unfit to contribute on Greek-related articles because I'm not a native-Greek and don't fully understand Greek, as maybe it is you the one who is unfit to contribute on this if you are not able to be polite and unaggressive to others. You say "it's not personal", but you have immediately accused me of having hidden interests ("what he gets out of this") and doing "original research based on my own understanding on numbers that should be used" (of course, you considering those to be "Undecided" is not original research despite it being nowhere to be said so, or yes?). And that after a very heated discussion yesterday in which you acted like a 5-year old boy, and kept creating issues out of nowhere despite the issue at hand being solved. You obviously have a personal involvement in this, either be it with me or with the matter in question, as shown by your aggressiveness in dealing with others.
I agree that the community should step in and have their say if they see fit, because definitely I'm not going to enter into another discussion with an user who keeps bloating falsities about myself just because he seemingly attributes himself somewhat of a superior universal right to edit this article above others, non-Greek speakers. Impru20 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GPO poll

See http://gpo.gr/el/component/k2/item/49-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7-gpo.html (in Greek). —Nightstallion 11:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed c (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether it was worth an extra mention (“one poll purportedly released by GPO showed the «yes» side leading, but was recalled etc.”)? —Nightstallion 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I think it'd be better to have it after the referendum is over, right now so many things are happening so fast it's hard to tell what is real and what is not, and the article has to make sense/have value in the longer term(1 month/year/decade from now). After the referendum is over, there can be room for all kinds of info, but if you think it helps you can add it now. Gts-tg (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but after we have more input on the issue's development, as it seems GPO may take legal actions. Impru20 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The GPO poll is no fake, also GPO doesn't say this in the link above. GPO only says that it didn't want the poll results to be public, as GPO preferred to participate in the publication. This is not relevant for WP articles as many reliable secondary sources cite the poll results (It is not the first time that documents have been made public and cited by reliable media sources, even if the originator was not happy about the making public).--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that it is a fragment of a piece of research. For all we currently know its research might not even be complete. It feels marginally premature to me for us to put this on wikipedia without a final, official number being released by the actual polling company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.43.52 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First editor Gts-tg takes it out by saying it is fake (even though the original source "GPO" doesn't even hint it is fake)
Then IP 94.66.43.52 "feels" the poll result are "premature" (even though the original source doesn't say it)
Then editor Vitiradikalis reasons in the change remark it is about (primary source) official / unoffical polls; but WP it is about what reliable secondary sources report about polls.
Many secondary english sources cited these poll results from GPO (and no WP editor has seen the copy they had). The primary Greek source GPO is not relevant for WP (It is clear that they are not happy it has been widely published, but that is not relevant to WP). If the secondary sources doubt the results, then we are talking.
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far, GPO itself claims that the poll is, at the very least, incomplete, as it states it is fragmented. In any case, the pollster is opposed right now to the poll's publication and on it being attributed to them, so for now we should remove it or at least not connect it to GPO until more information is made available. Impru20 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really read or answer the preceding remarks. GPO is a primary source wishing that poll results had not been published. That is not relevant for WP, if many reliable english sources can be cited about the poll results. (If you think about it, it is the typical writing of an agency trying to get something back that is already published)--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read and answer the preceding remarks. GPO, the primary source making the poll, "wishes" for the results not being published (yet) because they are fragmented and/or may be incomplete. It's not just a wish, but very well there could be a technical problem with the results. So, as long as GPO doesn't confirm it, it shouldn't be added until definitive results are shown. Impru20 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, why is Viet-hoian1 removing everything? Also, Palmos Analysis poll should be put on hold too, since Palmos has also officially expressed concerns on the results of the poll allegedly attributed to them. http://palmosanalysis.com/ This is the first time I've seen so many conflicts and denials on opinion polls in a Greek election, which surely comes as a result of the much heated referendum theme. Impru20 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added GPO and Palmos in a hidden status; that is, they will not be shown in the article, but remain accessible through the article's edit console should they need to be re-added. Impru20 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20, you are not willing to accept WP rules. If a primary source says, it is unhappy that results have been made public in many (english and reliable media) sources, it is a private comment of the "GPO" company. If GPO puts in the reasson "because [the publishhed results] are fragmented and/or may be incomplete", it is a comment of the private company "GPO". Probably a bad excuse, but that is not of relevance for WP. The reliable secondary sources report it - only they are relevant for WP.

Impru20, you may have understood that anyway, I guess, but if you have personal interests to prefer primary sources of companies to secondary reliable media sources, please explain here, and don't vandalize or multi-revert the article for your primary company source GPO.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? What problem do have people here that they feel the need to accuse others personally about ? I have only followed the logic used by several other users to remove the poll until more info is made available. If the pollster itself says that the poll could be wrong, we can't publish the data because the data can be wrong. And this is indifferent of what secondary sources say, because the primary source itself is denying that what has been published is the full poll or the completed poll. Secondary sources are used as long as the primary source verifies the data, which is not the case here. In any case, since it is a disputed issue, and several other users have expressed concern on this, and following Palmos example that has also been removed, so should GPO until the data is either confirmed or not. If you want to use the secondary source, fine, but you can't attribute it to GPO as of yet because GPO is reneguing on it, and since we can't attribute the data to anyone, we better leave the poll on hold. We are not in any hurry to publish it right now. Impru20 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you keep reverting others' edits on unjustified vandalism grounds, violating WP:GOODFAITH. Assume good faith unless proven otherwise, because your approach here is not the right one to take and you are potentially initiating an edit war without consensus for this poll to be added, neither for Palmos. Wait for the discussion to be over and don't initiate an edit war with other users, please. Impru20 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, funny discussion, what you try to make up even it is not there, like "until the data is either confirmed or not" (but nobody said that anybody plans to confirm anything), like "until more info is made available" (even if nobody said more info will be available), like "because the data can be wrong" (what the source didn't say)
Impru20, if the private company GPO had convinced the reliable media sources (secondary sources) that data was wrong AND these secondary sources accepted that, fine. But there seems to be a reason, GPO didn't do that or the media sources didn't change their articles. It is not task of WP editors to wait until secondary sources (especially if secondary sources didn't say they will review).
So stop vandalize and multi-reverting the article based on your private assumptions and interpretations of primary sources (which is not shared by everybody).--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you are doing is not correct:
1. You are using secondary sources from the date the poll was leaked (July 1st). Right now (July 2nd), there are secondary sources that have published GPO's comments unconfirming the poll: here, here, here. here or here. So, the most updated secondary sources agree that the poll is not valid according to its pollster.
2. According hree users (Gts-gt, Vitiradikal and myself, and an IP user, for a total of four) have, until now, agreed to remove the poll from the table for now as it has been denied by pollster. That is four to one (you), who for some reason keeps pushing his view forward disregarding the talk page. Right now, the only (seemingly confirmed) vandal has been Viet-hoian1.
3. You should learn that the fact that others do not agree with you does not mean they are vandalizing, and you can't accuse others of that just because you feel like it. I remind you for a second consecutive time on WP:GOODFAITH. You should check WP:VANDAL when it says Edit warring over content is not vandalism. The issue is disputed, and as of now you are outnumbered 4 to 1 respect to consensus about whether to keep the poll or not. Discuss the issue here, but stop re-adding it when the discussion is not over yet.
4. You are making a wrong assumption on secondary sources. If a pollster says a poll is not valid because it has leaked data that is fragmented, as this is the case, it doesn't matter what "secondary sources" say here. You can't associate the poll to the pollster because the pollster is denying the validity of such a poll. You are missinterpreting what the policy is on ; it doesn't work for false or incomplete data. At that case, at most, you can say something like data appeared on July 1st on a poll allegedly attributed to GPO but which the pollster denied, but you can't keep justifying the existence of a poll that its alledged creator is denying, no matter how supposed "sources" you want to show us, and specially now that secondary sources do point out in the same direction than the primary one. I don't know if an "official confirmation" will happen or not, but we are not here to say whether the addition of the "poll" depends on an official confirmation being possible or not. As of now it has been denied, and as such it must be treated.
Right now, the GPO data is present in the text content above the table, but not in the table itself, alongside the also unconfirmed Palmos Analysis poll, which as of now happens to be in the same situation that "GPO"'s. The data is not removed, it is shown in the "Opinion polls" section for everyone to see if so wishes, but we can't give it official status as the pollsters are not giving them official status (this is done also for the Palmos poll, which, again, is in the same situation, despite you happening to don't ever mention it). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and in case the above articles kindly listen by Impru20 are insufficient, direct quote from the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/02/greek-debt-crisis-athens-creditors-referendum-yes-no-live#block-559521b5e4b08f71d0eba769) also suggesting that the poll might not be complete AND sending word to GPO concerning its validity "So, it’s not clear whether the 47%-43% result is wrong. Or just part of a wider set of results which hasn’t been released. I’ve put a call into GPO, so we may get more info later...."
Seen the amount of energy you have to delete the poll results day and night, it seems to be very important for you that the secondary sources on the polls are not in the article (you are not the first one to a interest in deleting stuff from Greek articles even though reliably sourced), so that you first supported it was fake (what it never was), then you supported it to be postponed in WP (until after the referendum? even though the poll is already a historical fact?), then you said it may be "wrong" (what no source said), then you absolutely wanted to trust a private company source with a private interest to be more relevant than reliable media sources (even though not even the private company sources said it is wrong, only they are unhappy that media published it).
I think we can stop discussion, you are on a trip which is not to improve WP. (Also the new IP and other WP accounts created only to support you in this deletion show there are funny interests involved that you even support)
Being on the deletion trip for those poll results (that you obviously didn't like), you missed that many polls already confirm the poll results you deleted (what is broadly communicated in Greek TV, so you can stop to use WP for whatever your personal goals are, that doesn't help against TV anyway)
But maybe you want to enter the other polls (if you have so much energy about article)  :-) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attributing double intentions to others. I repeat: I've not been the only one to remove those polls from the table. You wanted proof of secondary sources making echo of GPO's opinion about denying its poll, and you have them; now, please, don't go into a discussion entering accusations, as you would be clearly violationg WP:GOODFAITH. The conflicting polls are added in the "Opinion polls" section, just not in the table as they are not confirmed, so it's not deleted data, but rather it has been relocated to reflect in the most appropiate way what sources say right now (both primary and secondary), that is, that this is "leaked" data that may be untrue/incomplete. You may accept this, or you may keep sticking to your non-sense ranting on me just because I'm so far the only one entering into a lengthy discussion with you. So far, the only one seemingly having some "interest" in keeping his energies on showing the GPO poll was you (I don't know if you had some interest as, back then, it was the only poll showing a "Yes" lead, but I'm rather avoiding accusations as you do). You even accuse (me?) of creating accounts to support the deletion. Have you even read the discussion above, in which I had a somewhat heated debate with one of the users supporting the deletion? Again, assume good faith; you are not doing it, and it could be problematic should this discussion continue. However, I'm pretty much open for an administrator to come in and confirm your very serious accusations, as Sock puppetry is a practice that goes against Wikipedia standards and can be reviewed and denounced. Also, keep in mind that usually those who accuse others of having "personal intentions" without arguments are usually the ones having a personal motivation behind their edits. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GPO poll has now been confirmed, but with different data. See here. This confirms that the previous "leaked" results were incomplete, as those do not match the final data now available. Impru20 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palmos poll

I've removed the Palmos poll entry, hopefully temporarily. Please do not add it again, there are two more there that should be enough for the moment. As soon as I have more information I will either restore the entry or provide specifics here. There is an OTRS ticket (#2015070210008975) involved here that anyone can verify by contacting another one of the volunteers, or posting a request in the noticeboard. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements of minor parties

I think the side taken by smaller parties should be mentioned in the campaign section, too. E.g. it seems (not surprisingly) that the ultrarightist Laos party has sided with the NO side [1] .--Dorpater (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems LAOS opposes the very referendum.

The position of DIMAR can be found here [2]. They say they are 'for Europe'. A Greek speaker might summarize the information from the statement for the article. --Dorpater (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polls sources

May I suggest to use this website as a source for the polls? I am not a Greek speaker, but it seems to me that the website is quite reliable (and it often provides links to the original sources). CorradoMor (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original sources (be them primary or secondary) would often be prefered, but I don't have any issue on using this website in case a link does not provide enough information. I do actually use it for other countries' polling in cases where original links are not available or show confuse data. Impru20 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it provides links to the original sources we need, that's why I find it useful. CorradoMor (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legality concerns section

The legality concerns section contains a lot of info that is not in proportion with the weight they carry, and is also formatted in a way that is too prominent (blockquote) with regards to the value it offers and the rest of the article. The referendum has been approved by the Greek parliament and President of Greece (head of state), and the top administrative court (Council of State) has dismissed any legal claims against it. Gts-tg (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 famously left-wing professors

There is a deleting edit war on the famous left-wing ideological background of Krugman et al.

Please put arguments here for supressing their background - to make them seem more neutral than they are?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These references have been entirely deleted, and compared to current press reports and opinion pieces (esp by economists), the page appears to be heavily biased in favor of troika views. Which is a shame. For a NPOV coverage of this topic, The Guardian has been doing pretty well. But really Krugman, Stiglitz, Galbraith, and Piketty appear to have the most fact-based analysis of the situation. Mkcmkc (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No war, but calling Krugman, Stiglitz and Galbraith famous left-wing economists makes no sense at all and is heavily POV. In the economic world they are known for being Keynesian. Also in the context of this being an issue about economy, it is merited to mention the opinion of 2 Nobel Prize for Economics recipients (Krugman, Stiglitz) Gts-tg (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Why is that POV?
What is your logic, that being for Keynesian economics leads to hiding a political left agenda?
What has a Nobel Prize to do with it? This is not an article about Keynesian methods. (If you don't know, Krugman always recommends political left instruments, independent of the situation. He has a left agenda, he does not even hide it. You are trying to hide it. Why?
Tsipras and Varoufakis, both coming from the communist part of the poltical movement, always cite "Krugman" et al., as an additional idea, for you
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the rant above is highlighting even better where the POV's at. Gts-tg (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is my POV? I am not trying to push and hide any ideological backgrounds of potential sources, be it a left or right wing background. If so, you might explain it.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that sentence appears biased, then one can try to balance it with equivalent opinions, but simply deleting it does not seem to be a good solution. If there are no other famous "professors" who expressed a "yes" position, then that's just the way it is, and one can mention that too.Okalumderix (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not about putting in further POVs to compensate for other POVs. You started the edit war by taking out context information. There needs to be an agreement on the talk page side - before any edit warring on the articles happens.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EconomicsEconomics, you probably want to give a look to the neutral point of view page, from which I copy paste (from section "Achieving neutrality") the following: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." Happy editing, Okalumderix (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ELA program not extended?

Editor "Gts-tg" repeatedly tried to implement in the article that the "ECB's decision not to extend the ELA programme in Greece" - that is not the case. If the ECB did decide not to extend the ELA program, Greece's banks would be bankrupt immediately. Please stop repeatedly adding real non-sense to the article.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, first you are highjacking the article citing edit-wars and after doing 5-6 reverts yourself, and now you are attributing to me a rationale I did not support, read again the actual edit, ELA did not have to do something with the capital controls, it was the Eurogroup's decision not to briefly extend the support programme Gts-tg (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You deleted the sentence "According to opinion polls, since the imposition of capital controls in Greece as a result of the continuous Greek capital flight that has not been offset anymore by additional Emergency Liquidity Assistance credits from the ECB, "
which exactly explains what happened.
Your did the deletion several times, last one being vague about a "support programme" without specifying what you mean, deleting the exact explanation above.
If you meant the "EFSF program", Greece's governemnt didn't accept a creditor proposal to extend this program.
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I do not mean either ELA or EFSF, I mean the Memorandum. I am specific on which edit this is about at the link I provided, no need to puff things up Gts-tg (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the Eurogroup deciding not to briefly extend the support programme"; but you forgot that the program running from the Eurogroup to support Greece was the "EFSF program"; the "Memorandum" is no program, and it can not be prolonged on its own as it only contains the reform obligations of the EFSF program; if you don't know all this you shouldn't revert so much but ask in the talk page.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I wrote, you seem to omit the part saying until the referendum takes place as the Greek government had requested, plus that the Memorandum includes more than just the EFSF. Look, the POV banners are clear from miles away, better let others comment too. Gts-tg (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse this even more... the ECB needed an active EFSF program with Greece to be able to continue to add new ELA credits compensating for the Greek capital flight; there was never the possibility that the so called "Memorandum" could be singled out (even if you call it "programme"); and the "Memorandum" could not serve itself as a base for extension, and therefore not for adding new ELA credits.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, folks. Can't we all get along?

Why don't you two take a break and agree not to change whatever is the point of your disagreement for, let's say, five days. Depend on other editors to correct what is grievously wrong and leave it at that (for 5 days). We are writing an encyclopedia, which should be true ten years from now, not today. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Can we have some more photos, please? A good photo of a "Nai"/"Yes" protest would be nice, for balance. You can to upload any photos you have at the Wikicommons upload wizard page; it gives a step-by-step guide. It would also be a really good idea to upload the documents referenced in the ballot to Wikisource, if they can be licensed; does anyone know if they can be? HLHJ (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I have created the article Endorsements in the Greek economy referendum, 2015. I would appreciate others building on it. Thanks! AusLondonder (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

The neutrality of this article is disputed because:

  • Content backed by sources that is in favour of a No vote has been systematically removed or distorted (e.g. this edit and this edit and this edit)
  • The entire article is unbalanced strongly in favour of a Yes vote, especially the sections and subsections on Legality concerns and Reception where only one view is presented, without any further justification or opposing views Gts-tg (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agree. EconomicsEconomics is systematically removing any reference favouring a defense of the "No" position, as well as accusing whoever reverts his otherwise unjustified blanking of page content as "vandals" and turning the page into a "Yes" vote defense platform. This in spite of the user himself having warned another user about "not deleting relevant content w/o getting consensus on talk page", despite him doing likewise (see here). Such actions include the edits you have posted here, but also the edit warring over the GPO poll and ignorance of the Palmos poll, both in the same theorical situation with "unconfirmed status" (note that the GPO poll gave a victory for the "Yes", while the Palmos poll gave a victory for the "No"). The user is also trying to force everyone else to discuss his so-claimed "issues" at the talk page despite him being the only one claiming that there is no consensus for those.
I have reverted some of his content removals for now. I favor whatever action possible to restore and keep this article's neutrality. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have not noticed the EconomicsEconomics removals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the balancing edits, there are large parts that are singularly presented. This is going to take time to balance. Gts-tg (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but now we have something to start with. Anyway, I've found out that user EconomicsEconomics has been having problems in the past regarding WP:POV (not taking a neutral point of view) and WP:SYNTH (implying conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources), and was banned for doing so in the Greek government-debt crisis article (a related-theme article to this one) through the using of personal attacks (such as discrediting others' edits pretty much in the same way he does here). If he keeps doing so here, it's possible it may require reporting. Impru20 (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. EconomicsEconomics has deleted some of my edits, and then accused me of doing vandalism as well as of starting an edit war, which is not true.Okalumderix (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here [3] editor "Impru20" added for the 3rd time an author with a 2013 book in the "campaign" section against a 2015 referendum, probably assuming a time machine. And here [4] editor "Impru20" adds for a third time that "the ECB's decision not to extend its Emergency Liquidity Assistance programme in Greece" which is nonsense as Greek banks would be officially bankrupt if that had happened. Both POV pushings intensively supported by editor "Gts-tg".
That all is so obviously wrong, I couldn't care less about your energy having it in the WP article. Also your other stuff is POV as well, but you know anyway, as it is documented in talk page and change remarks.
Gts-tg, Impru20, if you urgently need to add material "in favour of a No vote" as you say, go ahead, I couldn't care less. As you will see, you can't influence nothing concerning a vote with a WP article, being read only 12.000 times a day, even not with obviously wrong edits. But feel free if it makes you happy...
Report what you want, if it makes you happy...
(I am already glad if my home page is not stalked.)--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EconomicsEconomics, I have the impression that you are confusing the meaning of point of view (POV) on Wikipedia: reporting a personal (not supported by a reference) point of view is not allowed (and is POV), but reporting a reliable source (e.g. a news article) about a person who expressed his point of view should be considered encyclopedic information and belongs to Wikipedia (and is not POV).Okalumderix (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first time I make those edits. Don't know where you get the "3rd time" thing.
On Noam Chomsky, you can see his opinion on the current referendum crisis here, from July 2. The book reference links to his writings in 2013 criticising the ECB politics. Those are referenced materials and point out to facts appearing in sources, and as such, not POV.
ELA to Greek banks has been maintained to the same level than before by the ECB, not extended as it had been doing each day during the previous week to the referendum announcement (see here).
It has never been said that "material in favour of a No vote must be added". So far, the only making publicity of the Yes vote has been you, entering into conflict with nearly every editor in this article. You should learn what WP:POV does actually mean for: neutrality.
Instead of doing unsourced WP:SYNTH, use sources to get your claims right. Impru20 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, if you don't see a difference between "extend" and "expand", you probably shouldn't hire at a central bank, but it may be just ok for this article. As I said, do everything that makes you happy here, as the obviously wrong paras are put in so often via edit war, I will not put any more energy here; also not interested in your senseless meta discussions any more, keep the article at your level, bye then --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no hard feelings there Wolfgang. After all, it is the availability of all the notable opposing arguments that bring completion and neutrality to a subject's presentation Gts-tg (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article is in much better condition now, plus the referendum result by itself highlights any remaining POV contradictions that may remain in the article. I am removing the POV check tag, however if some other editor feels it should remain he/she can place it back. Gts-tg (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Can anyone translate the text of the referendum into English? MS Translator comes up with this:

MUST BE ACCEPTABLE to the DRAFT AGREEMENT, which has been promulgated by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, the EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK and the EUROGROUP in the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND on 25.06.2015 and CONSISTS of TWO PARTS, which are:
THE FIRST DOCUMENT TITLED "REFORMS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND BEYOND" AND THE SECOND "PRELIMINARY DEBT SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS"

I've replaced or eliminated the parts that didn't make sense but I'm sure I got a bunch of this wrong. Does anyone speak Greek? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoyGoldsmith it has already been translated to English in the article, it is placed in the top right of the page, right under the bold header Greek bailout referendum, 2015 Gts-tg (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest polls

Could anyone tell me what happened to these last two polls (the two indicating the number of "No" voters has risen quite significantly once again yesterday) that were removed? Were they fake? -- --95.90.226.60 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were no sources proving their existence, so yes, they were removed as a result. Impru20 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-result

BBC News has just published this article saying that with half the ballots in, the results so far say that 61% have said no and 39% have said yes. I know this isn't the full result, but should something be said about this as the full result hasn't been announced yet?  Seagull123  Φ  19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I just checked again and the result so far is there.  Seagull123  Φ  20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis in views section

In the views section it is said that four economists including Galbraith say "that keeping the current austerity programme is in any case the worst option from an economic point of view." But this wording is not reflected in any way in the referenced Galbraith article.

The phrase from "claiming..." on should be dropped or replaced with words actually attributable to a nameable source. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Galbraith says: "But in fact the creditors have continued to insist on a crushing austerity program, predicated on a target for a budget surplus that Greece cannot possibly meet, and on the continuation of draconian policies that have already cost the Greeks more than a quarter of their income and plunged the country into depression."The Proffesor (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wording in not ideal, but the current tagging I find unwarranted. All four references clearly indicate that the mentioned notable economists argue that "No" is better, and that "Yes" is a very bad option. I think "worst option" can be misleading as the scope of the brief articles is not to assess all possible options. However it is correct within the scope of the section, in that "Yes" is the worst option between Yes and No. --ELEKHHT 06:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the four economists have expressed at least implied support for the no position is not what's disputed. What is disputed is the "claiming this is the worst option" phrase which is editorial synthesis on our part. Other wording might be fine, quoting the Keynesians would be best. But implying they have all claimed what we say they have is simply supposition. I am going to remove the "claiming" phrase as synthesis. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see the wording was changed somewhat, I have further clarified here that there was no joint statement, just a common belief austerity is a bad option. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the referendum result

It seems appropriate to have a section in the article that summarizes the reactions to the referendum result. I would expect another (main) article may be started on the topic, but it seems this article might fairly summarize the high level reactions of the Greek state, citizens in the street, European creditors, banks, etc. Some things to watch for are a new temporary currency (IOUs that the finance minister has been talking about), increased capital controls, difficulties in consumating (international and/or domestic) financial transactions, problems in the payment system (paying for medicines, fuel, fertilizer, etc.) are just a few I've been reading about in various sources.

Any objection to starting such a section, and then adding a {main} template pointer once a better article comes up? N2e (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N2e yes I think too a reactions section would be good Gts-tg (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the map - Mt. Athos

Mt. Athos is blank. I know it's an autonomous territory. Did they simply not participate? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis of Tlön yes, Mt. Athos is self governed and autonomous and does not participate in elections in the Greek mainland Gts-tg (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article tag discussion

The article has been tagged for references. Perhaps the tagger and others would like to discuss the issues here? Jusdafax 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certain sentences are tagged for needing sources. Since it's not adequate enough for others to see, I added the big tag to help readers notice. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there's a maintenance tag requesting further references, and no fewer than eleven [citation needed] tags. Until these are fixed, I cannot see how this is ready to be featured at WP:ITN. To be fair, we don't really need to "discuss" claims that aren't referenced, we just need to "reference" them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the generic and unspecific tag at the top as we already have inline tags that provide much more useful hints as to what information is contested. Just as there is no need to SHOUT in discussions, there is no need to distract readers from the article with visually distracting tags. --ELEKHHT 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the tag because I don't want the article to be featured ITN with more sources needed. Medeis is correct on this, so discuss the statements that is tagged with "citation needed". George Ho (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you changed your argument. I'll repeat what I wrote at ITN: You can also read Template:Refimprove#When to use: "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with {{Citation needed}} instead of placing this template" (my emphasis). Overall 90% of the article is referenced and uncontested. One could simply move the contested sections to the talk page, and post the news. -ELEKHHT 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can support moving the contested sections. One could argue that the ongoing insistence for a tag is a violation of WP:POINT given the above. I agree that the article is very largely well referenced. The insistence that every single sentence be specifically referenced or a tag has to be applied at the top, effectively disfiguring it, seems to verge on the disruptive. Remove the tag. Jusdafax 03:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament ratification

We will need more data on the parliamentary procedure. Which party voted what, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in overall results table

It appears to me that it would be better to go with the default language for {{Referendum}}, which is just "No" and "Yes". The current wording, "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES", needlessly clutters the table. Furthermore, the default wording would mirror both the infobox on this article and the result tables used on numerous referendum articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. – Zntrip 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough space in the table for it to don't look cluttered. The wording of the answers was clear: "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES", and the full results table should reflect that. Btw, the infobox also reflects this wording; just only in a different way (it is formulated alongside the referendum question). There is no need for this referendum to look exactly the same as others if the answers' wording was slightly different; each referendum/election has its own characteristics. Impru20 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not Approved" and "no" mean the same thing. It's simply redundant. There is no need to slavishly mimic the language as it appears on the ballot itself. – Zntrip 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the ballot: "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES". Using WP:RELIABLE is not redundancy; this was what voters did have to choose about. In the infobox it makes more sense to avoid redundancy as it's a summary, but I don't see such a need for the full results table, specially when there's plenty of space for it. Can't see the issue. Impru20 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the ballot language. I'm saying that we don't need to repeat the language exactly the same way for the purposes of the results table. Everywhere else in the article, the options are shortened to "yes" and "no": this is the format used in the infobox's table, the introduction, and the opinion poll section. The article itself lists the entire question posed to the voters and has a facsimile of the ballot itself, so there is no confusion for a reader if we abbreviate to "yes" and "no" in the results table. – Zntrip 17:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but because in those sections either you can't modify the options by default (such as the infobox) or space extremely limits what you are going to write (the opinion polls table). Also, elsewhere in the article, it would be redundant if you are refering to the "No" or "Yes" votes to repeat the "Not Approved/Approved" expressions, but not in a table which is precisely purposed for full detailed results (including the full extention of the question's answers) and has no text context where it can be redundant. Again, just check the ballot and the Greek results page, which shows the full versions of the answers. And I really don't know what the confusion would be, since it's actually neither difficult to understand nor extremely long expresions: again, there is more than enough space for those to appear there without causing any problem. Impru20 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias on the English Wikipedia (in favor of DC (not so much in London)) desires

I was going to edit more precise results on the Spanish WP, but that WP is more advanced than your ridiculous WP, here. I've edited enough, more than enough, actually on the completely biased English Wikipedia. I'll edit about something else on the Spanish WP, which is my place, not the English WP, which has become ridiculously biased, sorry to say that, but it's true. Bye!Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Which sections seem biased? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DC = David Cameron? You mean his opinions are given too much weight? They are currently mentioned in one single sentence. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho Paul Barlow By DC I mean Washington DC. Yes, there is systematic bias in the English Wikipedia. It may have 4 million articles or more and be more deep in some articles than the Spanish WP, for instance, but since it's biased I prefer a more concise WP like the Spanish or the French one, for instance, rather than the disinformation that there is here on WP English, either if it relates to Greece, Ukraine or any other countries concerning to which USA (DC to be more precise) has geopolitical, economic, etc. interests. It's highly biased and I don't recommend it to anyone, since so-called unreliable sources that favour Washington's position are very welcome in this WP while the so-called unreliable sources that don't favour Washington's positions are rejected outright. Just look at the page about the current Greek govt, the parties and the politicians that participate on it... completely biased... Same for what concerns to the War in Ukraine issues. Nevertheless, concerning to scientific or technological articles, for instance, I think the English WP is quite nice and complete.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it occurred to me that you might have meant that, but it's an odd way of identifying the US government. English language editors will inevitably use English language sources for the most part, which for a current event such as this will be largely journalism. Rather than accuse the whole of en-wiki of bias, find acceptable balancing sources. Yes, there will always be some biased editors who will try to exclude anything that challenges their POV. That's inescapable. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand you really Paul Barlow and I'm sorry that English WP has become so ideologically biased concerning to political issues. It may hurt not only the credibility of the political issues on English WP (which are clearly biased) but also, as a consequence, other articles in English which are brilliant and not subject to any bias on scientific and other areas (until now, but beware because Christian fundamentalists may take over about some issues on sciences). Anyway, I've switched from mainly editing on English towards editing on Spanish, not because my knowledge on Spanish is particularly better than on English, but because the Spanish WP is more balanced (in my opinion) about political issues and it's quite more stimulating since it's the 2nd most read Wikipedia and a lot of articles there are still missing, particularly about my country. Well, anyway, from time to time I edit something here, though mostly on the Spanish WP. I hope the English WP finds some way to get unbiased, but as long as it will be essentially edited from only 2 countries (US and Britain) that won't happen. The countries contributing to the Spanish WP are quite more varied. Nice to speak with you and good night! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palmos poll (again)

After four days I have not received a reply to the OTRS ticket that prompted me to make this edit. I expected the person who wrote to challenge the source's reliability and provide a separate citation if appropriate, but apparently they decided not to. I was going to reinstate the entry, however the article has changed so much since then and there is plenty of additional polling information so I will leave it to the regulars to decide whether or not the source was reliable to begin with (per our standards) and restore it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag

Does an article with 50 citations need a "citation need" tag. Obviously we know that Wikipedia articles in English have a massive effect on referenda in Greece. So emotions were clearly running high as the vote approached, but there's no talk page discussion of lack of citations, rather warring over competing citations. There are a few tags in the article, but not many. The overall article, if anything, has maybe too much on the European Commission's views. Viet-hoian1's view that it's somehow biased towards Washington DC is unintelligible to me, given the tiny number of comments about the US. Clearly EconomicsEconomics's apparent attempts to impose neoliberal orthodoxy on the article have been perceived as a problem by several editors, but that's got nothing to do with the number of citation. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Greek_bailout_referendum&oldid=670882257"