Talk:Greece

Schengen Area reference missing

There is no information about Greece being part of the Schengen area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schengen2018 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Greece has a police force, but there are still criminal issues in the country. The prison population in Greece including pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners came to a total of 9,956 people as of January 2017. With the prison population being so big, the confinement areas and jails are used to overcrowding. The total occupancy level based on official capacity was at 103.9 percent in 2014. Not only was it 100 percent full, but then some. Why is there such a problem with the intake of criminals? What has the government done to help the country's issue? Well, they have added many more prisons and jails to smaller towns. This not only helps with the overcrowding situation, but it adds jobs to others. This way, some people could be focused on getting a job at a prison, rather than being the one behind bars. Not only is over crowding a problem, but so is the spike in crime and poor human right records. The spike in crime was mainly caused by the country's recession. People did not have a source of money and they needed it to survive. As for the poor human rights records, prisoners recorded things such as poor sanitation, no clothes or food, and no medical attention. The medical attention they did receive was from prison guards, not professionals. Greece has tried to make improvements within the jails and prisons, but it still is not the greatest. The reasons may include the fact that the country does not have enough money to pay for prisoner needs. They are still people, and need the basic necessities to live. <ref>Greece. (2018, April 02). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece/ref> Ambergert (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Furthermore, your proposal does not seem to have been written from a Neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)- Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use the insulting word Greece or Greeks - The name of the country is Hellas

Globally all non well educated people keep on repeating a HUGE historical mistake of the name ΕΛΛΑΣ HELLAS and instead you are using the bad insulting for us word GREEK GREEKS which is an INSULT from the Roman word Graeculus or the word some Turks use to insult Hellenic Hellenian people - It will be very kind of you all to stop insulting us and call us GREEKS - Use the words Hellenic Hellin Hellas etc -This is not a nationalistic notice but the true name of the people and the country - Greece as an alternative name is totally insulting- Thank you - Glaufx Garland SVK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos V Koukoulomatis (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I am Greek myself, but Wikipedia does not habitually use endonyms in article titles. It typically uses the name or term most common in the English language. See Use commonly recognizable names:

"In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics: this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The root of this name is not insulting but it refers to the hellenic tribe the Latins had their first contact with (see Graecus).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Greece public debt 1999-2010.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Remove transliterations from the infobox --141.255.38.202 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 141.255.38.202 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Check that the site of the Presidency of the Hellenic Republic translates the Greek term 'εθνόσημο' as 'national emblem' [1] and it uses the monochromatic version. --46.103.154.125 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many images

There are way too many images in this article, mostly due to AlbusTheWhite's edits. Images are running continuously both left and right of the text, which is overpowering. Quality over quantity should the the measure, and though they are all very nice images they need to be cut by about 50% so as to have balance with the text. I propose reverting to the last edit before AlbusTheWhite's first edit (03:33, 2 August 2018), in terms of images, and then working from there to replace any images which might need replacing by better examples of the subject matter. Even on the 2 August revision there are too many images, and it needs cleaning up; the following images should be removed in my view (from the 2 August revision as always):

• file:Treasury of Atreus Entrance Mycenae.jpg - there is a Minoan fresco image already, which is adequate
• file:Reconst_knossos_crete.jpg - same reason as above. Also, these two are both tall pictures and take up a lot of vertical space in the text, pushing other images down.
• file:Mistras002.jpg - not contributing anything to the accompanying text.
• file:0142 - Archaeological Museum, Athens - Antikythera mechanism - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 11 2009.jpg - could be moved to the technology section if one of the two existing technology pictures is replaced.
• file:Missolonghi.jpg - 4 images from the War of Independence are absolute overkill.
• file:Peytier - Kololotronis and his personal escort.jpg - ditto.
• file:King Constantine Ι of Greece, 1914, by Laszlo.jpg - not necessary. Tall picture pushing on an already-crowded image situation.
• file:Athens metro station.jpg - One athens metro station picture is enough. The Piraeus one is nicer.
• file:DSC-0033-First-Cemetery-of-Athens-august-2017.jpg - there are better examples of Greek sculpture.
• file:Νικηφόρος Λύτρας - Γυμνό.jpg - there are too many images of examples of modern Greek painting.
• file:Ethinko-theatro.jpg - the theatre in Corfu is enough.
• file:AlikiAutograf.jpg - not needed.
• file:Μελίνα Μερκούρη.jpg - not needed.
• file:Castaigne - Fencing before the king of Greece, 1896 Summer Olympics.jpg - there is already an image from the 1896 Olympics in the text.

This seems to be an issue with AlbusTheWhite's edits. They made a similar edit to the Thessaloniki page, adding a ton of images, which I have since reverted. The Athens article is swamped in pictures as well.

Thoughts? I've left a message on AlbusTheWhite's talk page to make sure they participate. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on which images to remove or keep, but I agree there are too many images and text sandwiches created by images on both sides (throughout almost the entire article). The galleries seem excessive too. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello,I am really sorry for causing such a havoc with the addition of the images,since i am actually new on wikipedia editing. Nonetheless, I consider that that some of my changes deserve to remain since they represent better the accompaning information.What I would suggest removing from Greece article would be:

• file:Mistras002.jpg
• file:Missolonghi.jpg - 4 images from the War of Independence are absolute overkill.
• file:King Constantine Ι of Greece, 1914, by Laszlo.jpg
• file:Νικηφόρος Λύτρας - Γυμνό.jpg
• file:AlikiAutograf.jpg

Also i strongly believe that of all the aforementioned that the following images should remain because the are iconic concerning their respective field (Melina Mercouri for Greek Cinema and The Sleeping Beauty by Chalepas for Greek sculpture) remaing influencial till this day:

• file:Μελίνα Μερκούρη.jpg
• file:DSC-0033-First-Cemetery-of-Athens-august-2017.jpg

Thank you and sorry for adding a ton of images AlbusTheWhite (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, many more images need to be removed, per WP:SANDWICH and WP:MOSIMAGES. The images in the article were fine before your additions, I suggest reverting to the status quo ante. Khirurg (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I suggest reverting to 03:33, 2 August 2018 and removing the 14 images listed at the top from the 2 August page. From then on we can talk about how to improve the images already in the article by replacing them (if that is necessary). --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we at least need to discuss this there is no such thing as status quo on an article.I believe that erasing all that would be a loss for the Greece article.We must not do things hastily.Also there have been alterations on the climate section so take that also in mind about rushing to conclusions.Thank you for your contributions. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of the images you replaced are of lower quality than the ones that were there before (e.g. the image of the parthenon). Since you added and replaced so many images, it is very difficult to manually undo your edits. If you want to re-instate your edits to the climate section that is another matter, you can do that after the images have been reverted. Khirurg (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to revert to the previous images, it is necessary to go back to the version from 21 July [2]. Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See.As far as quality is concerned that is a false statement.Many of the images are of important since they visualize what is mentioned in the script.

• file:Treasury of Atreus Entrance Mycenae.jpg - this can be deleted
• file:Reconst_knossos_crete.jpg - No,I suggest removing the fresco from Knossos
• file:Mistras002.jpg - Agree on the removal
• file:0142 - Archaeological Museum, Athens - Antikythera mechanism - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 11 2009.jpg - That was there before my additions
• file:Missolonghi.jpg - The same with this one.I did not add it.
• file:Peytier - Kololotronis and his personal escort.jpg - Kolikotronis deserves a visual represantation.
• file:King Constantine Ι of Greece, 1914, by Laszlo.jpg - Agree on the removal
• file:Athens metro station.jpg - Was there before
• file:DSC-0033-First-Cemetery-of-Athens-august-2017.jpg - there are NO better examples of Modern Greek sculpture(or at least that iconic).
• file:Νικηφόρος Λύτρας - Γυμνό.jpg - Agree on the removal
• file:Ethinko-theatro.jpg - Agree on the removal
• file:AlikiAutograf.jpg - Agree on the removal.Was there before
• file:Μελίνα Μερκούρη.jpg - Undoubtedly the most well-known Greek Actress worldwide
• file:Castaigne - Fencing before the king of Greece, 1896 Summer Olympics.jpg - I suggest removing the other image from the 1896 Olympics in the text.

Also i did not contribute to the climate section just saying that there were revisions during that time as well.We do not need to delete all of my contributions.I know i did wrong but not that much come on.Thanks again.AlbusTheWhite (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The images that were there before were all carefully selected and of high quality. If you feel some can be added or some need to be replaced please propose so below. As for your additions to the biodiversity section, feel free to re-instate them, provided they are sourced. Khirurg (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So were those there was a lot of information also.Do not start an edit war.Please you do not need to be so absolete.Also this is clearly not about the quality of the images because i am certain that most of them have excellent quality.Can anyone else comment on that?Thank you again AlbusTheWhite (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring, Albus. You've reverted the edits 3 times, which is a violation of Wikipedia:3RR. I agree with Khirurg and Dr.K. that it needs to be reverted to this. From then on we can discuss improvements to that version in terms of images (for example there is a lack pictures of more modern art in the art section), but I personally think they should be substitutions, not additions. The article is not that long. --Philly boy92 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This disruption has to stop. This is very bad editing combining bad picture choices and edit-warring to enforce them against clear consensus. Also Albus has been warned by Drmies to stop the disruption. Dr. K. 03:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I agree with you that I reverted 3 times.But what else to do?Noone is actually discussing in the talkpage and there is much information in those edits(about biodiversity,climate e.t.c)that it is a shame to not just erase images rather than to abruptly revert all those contributions.Thank you AlbusTheWhite (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not how wikipedia works. If there is major objection to an edit (as there clearly is), the edit needs to be agreed upon before being implemented. Not implemented by force. --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The talkpage of this account is full of edit-warring warnings. He is clearly trying to edit by force and he is not learning how to edit cooperatively. He needs to be blocked. Dr. K. 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to stop. This is a very high visibility article. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I know that and I agree on many levels ,but there was no discussion and then agreement.There was just an already created opinion opossing a new one without actually giving it a chance or thinking about it.I mean that I made suggestions that were altogether ignored and someone(or some people I I am not certain) proceeded and erased all that work.That I believe is no team spirit at all.Thank you again... AlbusTheWhite (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sure, just please don't revert again. When a number of editors oppose you, the only way to resolve the dispute is by talking, not reverting. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The team spirit happens here. You made a massive change to the page, which the community finds, on the whole, damaging to the article. Common practice on Wikipedia is to revert and find a solution on the talk page, then implement that solution. I included you in this discussion, so of course there is team spirit. If your definition of team spirit is that your revisions should stay, then you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Can you make a clear and concise list of what you think is wrong with the images in the article, and which ones specifically need to be replaced, and by what? --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes for sure,it will just take a bit.And thank you AlbusTheWhite (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. file:Entrance to the treasure of Atreus.jpg change to file:Reconst knossos crete.jpg
2. file:The Parthenon in Athens.jpg change to file:Parthenon - facade ouest.jpg
3. file:Napoli BW 2013-05-16 16-24-01.jpg change to file:Portrait of Alexander the Great, most likely of the sculptor Leochares, 340-330 BC, New Arcropolis Museum, Athens (14053483565).jpg
4. file:Maltan knights castle in rh.jpg change to file:Palace of the Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes (9451928431).jpg
5. file:Odeon of Herodes Atticus, built in 161 AD on the south slope of the Acropolis of Athens in memory of his wife Annia Regilla, Athens, Greece (14006718245).jpg change to file:GR-acropolis-herodes-odeon.jpg
6. file:Agia Sofia front July 2006.jpg change to file:Meister der Demetrius-Kirche in Saloniki 001.jpg
7. file:Naxos Town, Kastro, Grotta, 143740.jpg change to file:Altstadt von Lindos.jpg
8. file:AlikiAutograf.jpg change to file:Μελίνα Μερκούρη.jpg

AlbusTheWhite (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. N - There is a Minoan fresco already displayed.
2. N - The Parthenon was never meant to be looked at straight on. If you have an issue with the low quality of that particular image, I can provide a better quality version of my own.
3. N - The existing one is better.
4. Y - Better image.
5. Y - Better image.
6. N - Just use a better image of the Hagia Sophia. (this?)
7. Y - Better image.
8. Y - Not bothered either way.

--Philly boy92 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the real tragicomedy here is that even after reverting to the last good version the article is still full of text sandwiches, especially in the History section.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Y - Agree.
2. N - Actually the older Parthenon (Proparthenon) that was built before the Persian wars was at the center of the Acropolis after the Propylea.Then after the Persian wars the Athenians decided to leave the temple at the center untouched,hence the perspective view of Parthenon at the side.Can you provide a better quality version.
3. N - I believe it is better to be represented with an artifact from Greece.
4. Y - Agree.
5. Y - Agree.
6. N - The Acheiropoietos and Agios Demetrios I believe are more representative.
7. Y - Agree.
8. Y - Mercouri is more important. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Philly boy92, especially regarding Mycenae, the Parthenon, and Hagia Sophia. I don't like the image for Lnidos though (top down), there are far better photos of Lindos out there. Khirurg (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a better picture of Lindos. --Philly boy92 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent!I believe that picture is the best. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, much better pic. Khirurg (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest changing file:Μετέωρα - Μονές.jpg to file:Meteora Monastery (909625480).jpg AlbusTheWhite (talk).So how does this work?You change it or I? 06:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree, for the record, that there were too many images after AlbusTheWhite's additions, but also, as Seraphim System wrote, that there still are too many images right now. WP:SANDWICH should not exist at all, but is still very prevalent in the article, especially in the History section. If images are just absolutely indispensable, then better use a gallery underneath a section, rather than how it looks now, and please let's standardize the size of images. It looks frankly unprofessional the way it is now. I would suggest using a wide size (300px) for landscape-type pics like maps, and a double-image using {{Multiple image}} for portrait pics, again with a total width of 300px. Now, a few examples of pics that IMO are candidates for removal or replacement: the map of the Megali Idea is redundant to the map of modern Greek territorial evolution; there are four (4) images of military hardware, surely we don't need so many; we have a profile pic of Tsipras in the article, but not Trikoupis or Venizelos (!), which is rather WP:RECENTISM; with Angelokastro, I don't know how representative it is for the period it stands for, I would consider Bourtzi in Nafplio or the Koules in Heraklion or one of the Crusader castles like Platamon or Chlemoutsi far more indicative. Constantine ✍ 07:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cplakidas. As an immediate remedy to the history section, I propose keeping (Y) or removing (N) the following:

1. N file:Entrance to the treasure of Atreus.jpg
2. Y file:Stiersprungfresko 02.jpg
3. Y file:The Parthenon in Athens.jpg, move to the right
4. Y file:Alexander and Bucephalus - Battle of Issus mosaic - Museo Archeologico Nazionale - Naples BW.jpg, move to the right
5. Y file:Greek Colonization Archaic Period.png, move to a gallery below the text, along with file:MacedonEmpire.jpg. This groups the maps together.
6. N file:0142 - Archaeological Museum, Athens - Antikythera mechanism - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 11 2009.jpg
7. Y file:Odeon of Herodes Atticus, built in 161 AD on the south slope of the Acropolis of Athens in memory of his wife Annia Regilla, Athens, Greece (14006718245).jpg, maybe replace with file:GR-acropolis-herodes-odeon.jpg per Albus.
8. N file:Agia Sofia front July 2006.jpg. Alternatively, put this file to the right, and move file:Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg in a gallery below the text, along with file:Eastern Mediterranean 1450.svg. This again groups maps together. I would prefer the second option.
9. Y file:Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg (note above)
10. Y file:Maltan knights castle in rh.jpg, replace with higher-quality file:Palace of the Grand Master of the Knights of Rhodes (9451928431).jpg
11. N file:Battle of Lepanto 1571.jpg
12. Y file:White Tower in Thessaloniki.jpg, this is too tall, so replace with file:Thessaloniki White Tower and promanade.png or file:White Tower (2).jpg
13. N file:Missolonghi.jpg, this is a bad photograph of the painting
14. Y file:Eugène Delacroix - Le Massacre de Scio.jpg, move to the right
15. Y file:Peter von Hess - The Entry of King Othon of Greece in Athens - WGA11387.jpg, move to the right
16. Y file:King George of Hellenes.jpg
17. N file:Territorial Expansion of Greece from 1832–1947.gif, this is a terrible image
18. Y file:Greek Parade Paris 1919.jpg
19. Y file:Greece in the Treaty of Sèvres.jpg, but replace with file:Map Greece expansion 1832-1947-en.svg. The original map is pretty but difficult to read.
20. Y file:Greek Army during Primavera Offensive Klisura March 1941.JPG
21. Y file:Αντάρτες του ΕΑΜ-ΕΛΑΣ.jpg, possibly move to the right?
22. Y file:Αθηναίοι γιορτάζουν την απελευθέρωση της πόλης τους, Οκτώβριος 1944.jpg
23. Y file:Accession of Greece to the European Union.png

Also, I think file:Alexis Tsipras in Moscow 2.jpg should be replaced by file:Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος.jpg with an appropriate caption. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Someone noted the sandwiching--they're right, it's awful and it needs to be taken care of. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Strongly disagree regarding the Treasury of Atreus and Antikythera. It's important to have an image of the Mycenean period in there. Perhaps a less "tall" image, e.g. of the Lion's Gate? Although I do like the treasury of Atreus because it shows the sophistication of Mycenean construction. I am against lumping the Greek colonization and Alexander maps together in a gallery. Such galleries create tons of white space in an article. Antikythera can be accommodated in the Hellenistic section without sandwiching, so I don't see a reason for removal. It is also one of the most significant archaeological findings in Greece and the best example of the sophistication of ancient Greek Technology. I also feel Haghia Sophia can be accommodated without sandwiching, although in my opinion it is far from the best example of Byzantine architecture in Greece. I am Ok replacing with Mystras, Osios Loukas, etc...I agree regarding Lepanto (Greece played no part). Regarding Missolonghi, it may be a bad image, so maybe it can be replaced with a better one, but Missolonghi was a key event in the War of Independence, and moreover there is no sandwiching there. Regarding the territorial expansion of Greece, it may not be the best quality image, but such a map is critically important. In fact I would say it's the most important image in the Modern History section. Other than the above, I agree with Phillyboy. Khirurg (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I generally think if there isn't enough space on the right, and you need to put the image on the left, there isn't enough space. Images on the left look weird (in my view). If we could find a landscape-oriented image from the period then I'd be okay with putting one in. Regarding the map of Greece's expansion, I suggested replacing file:Greece in the Treaty of Sèvres.jpg with file:Map Greece expansion 1832-1947-en.svg. It's a little bit further down in the text, in a more appropriate place (the Balkan Wars/WW1, when the bulk of Greek expansion happened). --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree on principle, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker either. That said, I don't see what's so awful about the current territorial expansion map. If possible I would like to include both it and the Sevres map. On the other hand, we could remove King George (he's not even Greek). In general I find maps much more informative than pictures of individuals. I would also like to address a couple of points brought up by Cplakidas. Regarding Angelokastro, I think that is a very nice image, and Angelokastro is important as it was key in preventing Corfu from falling to the Ottomans (the only Greek island). Also regarding the military hardware, I don't see an issue, the images fit in the section nicely without sandwiching. I would also like to remove the awful protest pic, maybe move the tanker pic in that location. Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Gifs are not good at resizing, resulting in things like this. This is what I see when I click on that image to see it larger, versus this for the SVG. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point now. Khirurg (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ι think this user tried to make a very "hellenocentric" article so the too many photos. But in the languages map the northern country of course its not called Vardaska. This is offensive for wiki and seems nationalistic Greco22 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well greetings once again. Firstly That map showed the minority languages that Greece recognized not the other way around. I also believe that an article like Greece deserves more images. Have you seen other countries' articles? It does not even compare. I know that sandwiching is an issue but it also depends on a lot of other reasons(screen size etc.) It would be a pity to not have a visual represantation of an event in order Just to avoid the so called "order" AlbusTheWhite (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all we dont care what Greece recognize This is an encyclopedia not a foreign ministry Second, in thrace the official greek state recognize the turkish lang. With lessons for children. Imnot sure about pomakGreco22 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Should the League of Corinth foundation date (338 BC) be included in the country infobox for Greece under the heading "Union of City States as Hellenic League"?

Threaded discussion

"The concept of Greece is an ancient one" and "no such separation exists" is not the standard for country articles in the infobox. This content is discussed in the article's history sections but we list the date of the modern state's founding in the infobox. This completely indefensible non-encyclopedic content dating the founding of the Greek State to 338 BC was removed [3] in what should have been a completely non-controversial removal, which as now been reverted multiple times by Dr.K.. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. According to you I reverted multiple times? I reverted exactly as many times as you did. Two. You piggyback on other editors to prolong edit wars and create instability in articles, which you then invoke. Cute. With your edit-warring record, I would be much more careful. As far as the removal, it is non-controversial according to your edit-warring POV. That doesn't count for much. Dr. K. 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's non-controversial because it is standard on even the most controversial country articles like Israel to discuss history in the history section and the date the state was formed in the infobox. We have also followed that on Turkey. I don't see any justification why we should deviate from that standard for this article. It is up to you to explain why you think an exception should be made for this article, however, I think this discussion might be better on the template talk page because these fields should be standard across articles. If there is confusion or dispute about what formation means, it should be explained better in the documentation, not by edit warring and blaming other editors for article instability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling something "non-controversial" although you rapid-fire edit-warred about it, sounds like an oxymoron. Noone edit-wars at breakneck speed for something that is "non-controversial". As far as other countries, well, that's WP:OSE. Also I don't think the template can be regulated to this degree. Dr. K. 06:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can, that is why templates have documentation. The infoboxes are standard across articles, there usually is not dispute about what the field means (non-controversial). It should be non-controversial. I don't think you are saying the state of Greece was founded in 338 BC, so the discussion about what "country formation" means would have to resolved on the template talk page. I think it is clearly referring to the founding of the state and the events immediately surrounding it - important treaties, wars, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that field of the template (called "Formation", "Establishment", "History" or similar) is often, I would say most often, filled with dates long before the establishment of the current state. Examples found by unsystematic sampling: Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway as opposed to Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Strangely enough, Germany does not even have such field. In any case, the decision about inclusion/non-inclusion should be made by consensus in the talk page, not by edit war. And it is definitely not non-controversial. --T*U (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thank you T*U for your well-made points. Dr. K. 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dr K. is pushing pro-Philip of Macedon propaganda, the real founding event is the foundation of the Greek Delphic Amphictiony shortly after the Trojan War by the principal pan-hellenic Greek states; Greek Sparta was not even a member of the so-called Hellenic league! Stop the Argead propaganda!

Well,I am certain that this is fiction or Just a misunderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusTheWhite (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Argead dynasty propaganda? Lol. What a concept. :) Dr. K. 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the Hellenic League has no place on this infobox. Greece was basically the first modern nation-state in Europe, and there is nothing wrong with that. No need to involve the Hellenic League, which didn't include large swathes of Greece proper or the colonies. Also, I have an issue with 25 March being shown as the independence day; the War of Independence started in on 23 February 1821, not 25 March. That's some Church of Greece propaganda from the Otto years. --Michail (blah) 15:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here. The Hellenic League was the first instance of a unified Greek state in history. It may not be the direct antecedent to modern Greece, but it is historically important. Khirurg (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is quite flimsy, it's not like in China where there is a very clear linear progression between the current state and its first unified state. Pile on top of that the fact that Sparta was not included, nor Crete, nor Thessaly, nor Molossia, nor the colonies of Magna Graecia, nor the most powerful Greek state - Macedon. Modern Greece is not the successor state to the League of Corinth, and that should not be in the infobox. --Michail (blah) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not "flimsy". When the first instance of a state is established, it does not have to include all its member states. As far as clear linear progression, that's just instruction creep and ignores the clear historical relevance of the Corinthian League. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Khirurg: Thanks. That's what I meant when I mentioned the concept of Greece as a state. For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece. This article is not only about the modern Greek state. It is also about its history and that includes Ancient Greece. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the modern state. There is a separate article called History of Greece. It's why under 'Politics' it doesn't explain the 3,500-year evolution of Greek politics from god-kings to Tsipras. Including the League of Corinth in the infobox gives it unnecessary gravitas. It would be good for those who want it there to compile a list of reputable sources which support the viewpoint that the League of Corinth is, in fact, the predecessor of the modern Greek state. --Michail (blah) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this article is not only about the modern Greek state. As I mentioned above, it is also, obviously, about its history. Ignoring the Corinthian league, it is like ignoring its ancient history. Dr. K. 17:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is the country of Greece. This is expressed in the leading sentence: Greece [...] is a country located in Southern Europe. The country was established in 1832. Like I said, please provide us with some academic sources which claim that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the Greek state, because this is the purpose of that part of the infobox. --Michail (blah) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is simplistic to ask historians to phrase Greece's history according to the requirements of Wikipedia's infoboxes, while at the same time ignoring the long history of Greece. Also, the primary topic of this article is inextricably linked to its long history. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And also, how will you remedy the fact that large swathes of 'Greece' were not part of the Hellenic League? "Union of City States as Hellenic League" implies that all Greek city-states were united into a single entity, which is a lie. --Michail (blah) 17:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Before you continue nonsense references to "lies", read what I wrote above: For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece.. It is obvious that the first instance of a unified Greece was not completely inclusive of all its later member states. Think of the EU before you go again down this path. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've listed this for Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please provide us with some sources for your claim. "Union of City States as Hellenic League" is grossly misleading, some of the most important city-states were not part of the League. --Michail (blah) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a misfiled 3O request, because the active participants in this are four, not two, as required by 3O. Also please do not repeat requests for sources, since I addressed this point above. Dr. K. 18:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not actually provide any sources though. --Michail (blah) 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I take it you didn't understand my response. Which is fine. Dr. K. 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your response wasn't that complicated, I understood it. But it didn't contain any sources. Where are you getting this information from, that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the modern Greek state? Which scholars describe the League as the first Greek state, and who links that first Greek state with the modern Greek state? Are we to take your word for it? Where is the scholarly consensus? --Michail (blah) 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I just provided the RS that you requested in the article, calling the Corinthian League "the first unified Greek state in history". Now you can argue about semantics, but no reputable historian disputes the fact that modern Greece is the historical heir of Ancient Greece. Dr. K. 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? Is that why ancient Greece is not included in the history section of the Britannica article on Greece, but is instead a separate article called Ancient Greek civilization? The infobox is about the modern state of Greece, not Greece as a cultural entity. It lists the official name of the state of Greece, Hellenic Republic. It lists its official capital. It lists its currency, its legislature, its political leadership. It is the infobox for the state, and this state has no relevance to the historical state of the League of Corinth. Your source (a single source) states that it was "the first unified Greek state in history" - which is misleading. A "unified Greek state" cannot exist if all states of Greece are not unified. It was an important development in Greek history, but it has no place in the infobox. --Michail (blah) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This excerpt from Britannica also seems potently relevant to this discussion: Although there certainly are significant similarities that demonstrate continuities in some aspects of Greek culture, there are also equally important differences that demonstrate discontinuities in other aspects of Greek culture. Unfortunately, scholarship on this issue has often been overshadowed by nationalist and romantic political agendas of Greeks and non-Greeks alike." --Michail (blah) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Formation" is not the best infobox field to list the Hellenic League? But it is historically important as the first unified Greek state in history. Maybe a more suitable infobox field can be found? Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the importance of the League, but it has no place in the infobox. The infobox is about the modern state. The League of Corinth mention in the history section is unreferenced. --Michail (blah) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Khirurg: I agree. Dr. K. 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)