User talk:Nipsonanomhmata

The Revival of the Olympic Games in Modern Times

Hello Jonel,

I've noticed that you have a point-of-view regarding the revival of the modern Olympic Games. But I have also noticed that you are not providing references for that point of view and that you are deleting referenced information about Evangelos Zappas.

Why the bias towards the Wenlock Olympian Society and the Wenlock Olympian Games? And why don't you refer to them by their proper names? They have never been called the Wenlock Olympics. You haven't even bothered to cross-reference the website of the Wenlock Olympian Society.

Why are you emphasizing Brookes and belittling Zappas?

I strongly recommend that you make the effort to read David C. Young's book "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" published by The Johns Hopkins University Press in 1996. It is the reference work on the revival of the modern Olympic Games.

It does not belittle the contribution of Dr Brookes or of Zappas.

I certainly do not think that anybody can call the Zappas Olympic Games small, insignificant or less important than the Wenlock Olympian Games. How can they? The Zappas Olympic Games were international on their first event in 1859. The Zappas Games had a bonafide refurbished ancient Olympic stadium on their second event in 1870. It was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. So how can the Zappas Games be insignificant or less than what happened at Much Wenlock when Much Wenlock had neither "international" participants nor a stadium? Then when you dig deep and look at the actual sports events themselves and notice jousting, tilting the ring, sack races, egg and spoon races ... then you have to think seriously as to why anybody takes them seriously.

How can anyone ignore that? Both Brookes and Coubertin knew of Zappas. Brookes adopted athletics events directly from the 1859 Games and incorporated them into the 1860 Games in Much Wenlock.

The Wenlock Olympian Games were not properly national before the 1866 Olympic Games in London at Crystal Palace.

To be honest, the Olympian Class held between 1850 and 1859 in Much Wenlock was little more Olympic than the Cotswold Olympicks. The Cotswold Olympicks are not reknowned for their classical athletic events. Instead, the Cotswold Olympicks are world-reknowned for their shin-kicking contests. Not very Olympic at all.

Besides ... what is the Olympic Games without its Ancient Greek roots. If there are no Greek roots then the Olympic Games has no right to be called the Olympic Games. There were no Greek athletes at Much Wenlock or in the Cotswolds. No stadiums. No international participants. No roots, no tradition, just shin-kicking, jousting, and boasting which they still excel at today.

The Wenlock Olympian Society used to boast that it was the birthplace of the Olympic Games up till recently. A laughable boast. The problem is that THE birthplace of the modern Olympic Games is no less a laughable boast. They need to wake up and realise it soon because the Wenlock Olympian Society will be ridiculed till the end of time.

Nipsonanomhmata 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to get some facts straight, shall we? You seem to be confused on a few things. A) I've done very little editing regarding Brookes or the Wenlock games. You added an excessive amount of detail about those to the 1896 Summer Olympics page, Perakhantu removed it. B) No one has said that the Zappas games were less significant than the Wenlock games. The point everyone, including Young (as has been quoted to you before), is making is that Zappas was among those who "advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded"--as compared to the IOC who have succeeded, as evidenced by the fact that the IOC's games have lasted over 100 years and have been celebrated 25 times for the summer games alone, are worldwide in scope, and continue to grow in scope. C) I have always maintained that Zappas holds a place in Olympic history. In fact, I started the article on Zappas because Wikipedia's coverage of him was lacking.

Some of your contributions are good, and those contributions are being kept. Some of your contributions are hostile, aggressive, and belittling of everyone and everything that isn't Evangelos Zappas. That needs to stop. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocated? No not advocated. Zappas did. Everybody else followed. Zappas paid for the refurbishment of the stadium. Zappas paid for the land around it. Zappas paid for the building of the first purpose-built Olympic arena. Zappas paid for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Olympic Games and the larger part of the first IOC Olympic Games held in Athens in 1896. But credit where credit is due. Brookes organised a national Olympic Games in 1866. It was Brookes who originally inspired Coubertin. But Coubertin used Zappas' stadium.

The reason that Coubertin's revival lasted was because of the Panathenian stadium. Without it the Olympics may have taken a bit longer to achieve an Olympiad.

I don't understand why anybody needs to use the words "success" or "succeeded" in an Encyclopaedia.

If the Olympiad is all important as the measuring stick for success then the IOC failed to maintain the Olympiad in 1944. It also failed to maintain the Olympiad in 1916. Paris 1900 was a joke. So how do you measure success? Is the fact that the Olympiad has continued uninterrupted since 1948 a success? Is the modern Olympic Games in its current format a success? In ancient times wars would stop for the Olympic Games. So does that make the IOC's revival a failure?

It's wrong to use the words "success" or "failure" or any derivative of those words. They express opinions and not facts.

Coubertin's revival would have fallen flat on its face without the Panathenian stadium. Sometimes it takes more than one person to make a revival happen. That's what happened with the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1896 Summer Olympics FAR

1896 Summer Olympics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why bother when everybody keeps deleting the factual content that I introduce. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Olympic Games

Hi, I have reverted the edits you made today to the above article. Some of your changes give undue weight to the 1859 event organised by Zappas whilst others, such as the change to say there are only two parts to the modern games thus ignoring the paralympics, are incorrect. I therefore ask that before making any further changes in the same vein you discuss them on the talk page first as some members of WikiProject Olympics are curently trying to get the article back to its former status as a featured article. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give due weight to Evangelis Zappas who was a founder of the modern Olympic Games. Wikipedia ignored him completely before I introduced him. To claim that the Paralympics is a part of the Olympic Games (Summer or Winter) is ridiculous. The Paralympics is its own event and the roots of the event are the Olympic Games. It is not organised by the International Olympic Committee although many people who are involved are involved with both events. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Olympic Games that were Sponsored by Evangelis Zappas

Hello again. For the German, I had somehow gotten the impression that he was half-Greek. My mistake. However it is an indisputable fact that (except for him) all participants were ethnic Greeks. You are most likely not Greek yourself (I guess) otherwise you would know that in the 19th century, being a Greek citizen was not the same with being a Greek, since most Greeks lived in the Ottoman Empire. Now, you would also be able to tell immediately that Velissariou (or any of the other names you posted) is a Greek name, just as you should know that the Greeks who lived in western Asia Minor at the time had mostly settled there in the 18th-19th centuries (hence not of ancient Greek/Byzantine etc descent), and a number of other things, such as the mindset of the Greeks at the time: no Ottoman Greek who would come to compete in Greece would claim to have done so for the Ottoman Empire... Even in the 1896 games, there were ethnic Greeks from abroad (Egypt for instance) who are counted as having competed for Greece. Since the participation was obviously restricted to ethnic Greeks, irrespective of citizenship/nationality, the Games can not under any circumstances be characterized international. Bear in mind, "international" does not mean only "from many countries", but also, and more strictly, "from many nations" (esp. since nation-states emerged, the former has come to mean the latter, but the distinction still exists). Pan-hellenic maybe, but international not, except in a very technical (and pedantic) sense.

As for the name, Wikipedia operates under the rule that non-ambiguous names are to be used as far as possible. Since the article's name, and the prevalent usage within the article is "Zappas Olympics" or "Zappas Olympic Games", precisely so as to distinguish them from the later, IOC-organized Olympic Games, that is the proper form to use here. In regards to the website, as I said, it is interesting, but not reliable. It has a very clear and very polemical point of view, and should be used with care. Just because a website says something, we should not hasten to copy-paste it into WP. Please read the relevant policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view in this regard. Constantine ✍ 01:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PS, do not mistake me for a Greek nationalist or something (if I were that, I'd probably be hell-bent on agreeing with you that the first international games were indeed held in Athens in 1859). To illustrate my point, say that, in 1860, Olympics were held in Munich, and Germans (and only Germans) from the German states, including Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, participated. Would you class that as "international"? Constantine ✍ 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were all born in Germany then no. If some of them were born in Hungary or Switzerland then yes. Besides, you are not comparing like-with-like. The example you have given is Germans within a German Empire. In this case the Greeks are from an Ottoman Empire and not a Greek one. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PS2. Please pay attention when you are editing: a) the entire section "These Games were International" is written like an argument. Arguments belong in the talk page, not in the main article. E.g. "Those that argue that Mindler was Greek because he was born in Athens then... " is directed to me, not the average reader. b) you are also removing information I added, e.g. concerning the Omonoia square, and undoing perfectly valid copyedits for style. Please be more careful. Constantine ✍ 01:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't editing. I created an original paragraph/section. Why not just edit it instead of deleting it. The information inside the paragraph was factual, useful and relevant. Ofcourse, information that is not based on facts should be deleted. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "except for him" are you excluding an international competitor? You have acknowledged that Mindler was not an ethnic Greek and that at the very least the 1875 Olympic Games was not limited to an ethnic group. Therefore the 1875 Olympic Games was an international.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The country that we call Greece (since what we call Ancient Greece was a group of nation states) did not exist before 1821. You are right in that being ethnically Greek and being a Greek citizen are not the same thing. Greek citizens are citizens of Greece who are either born in Greece or who have a Greek passport. Ethnic Greeks include diaspora all over the world and many don't even speak Greek and many modern ethnic-Greek sportsmen compete and represent a wide range of countries. Velissariou was a diaspora Greek (i.e. not a Greek citizen) and he represented Smryna which was a city in the Ottoman Empire and today is a city in modern Turkey. Smyrna was only briefly a part of Greece in the early 20th Century and well after the Olympic Games of 1859. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that you did not intend to say that Velissariou was not of "ancient Greek / Byzantine decent". Clearly, he is not of Roman, Turkish, or Venetian decent. I have never denied that he is anything other than ethnic-Greek. Trying to claim that he went to live in Smyrna and then competed for Smyrna doesn't make sense either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When athletes compete, even today, they do not necessarily represent any nation. Many compete for themselves. But you cannot deny that an event is not an international when athletes have attended from at least two different countries. They do not personally have to represent a country (they only have to be born in a different country). It only takes two athletes from two countries to make an international. You could setup a competition and have only two athletes attend. If one is from Germany and one is from Hungary then it is an international. And it makes no difference if it happened during the Second World War or at the time of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not an Ottoman Greek would deny his place of birth or his nationality. The fact is that he has a different nationality and clearly is not a citizen (nor was born in) the modern Greece that was liberated in 1821. End of story. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case what is the difference between "from many nations" and "from many countries"? Aren't Bavaria, Greece, Ottoman Empire (and Crete) enough nations and countries? Greece was independent from the Ottoman Empire since 1821. Bavaria is totally distinct from Greece. Smyrna and Constantinople (aka Istanbul) are in modern Turkey. Greeks living in the Ottoman Empire and outside of Greece were not Greek citizens (they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire). Even if the ethnic Greeks claimed to represent Greece in the Pan-Hellenic geographical region of Greece they were kidding themselves because they were not inside the Pan-Hellenic geography of Greece. Macedonia wasn't liberated till 1912. Crete didn't join with Greece before 1913. Constantinople (aka Istanbul) and Smyrna are today part of modern Turkey. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse the term Pan-Hellenic with an ethnicity. When we say Pan-American we mean throughout the Americas. When we say Pan-Australian we mean throughout Australia. When we say Pan-Hellenic we mean throughout Greece and we do not include the diaspora and we do not include Greeks who live in countries occupied by others for more than 300 years. The ethnic Greeks who live in Turkey today all have Turkish passports and have to serve in the Turkish army and although they are bonafide ethnic Greeks they are not part of what we call Pan-Hellenic (unfortunately). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not presume to teach me what pan-Hellenic means or meant. Pan-Hellenic today has an entirely different meaning to what it did before 1923, when a large part (and before 1912, the larger part) of the Greek population lived outside the bounds of the Greek kingdom. There were hundreds of ethnic Greek politicians, military officers, merchants etc who came to Greece from the Ottoman Empire. Also, do not lecture me the mindset of the Greeks in the 19th century. I repeat it: no Greek who came to Greece to compete in an event organized by the Greek state would claim to represent or feel like representing anything other than his local Greek community ("i.e. Greeks of Smyrna/Constantinople/Trebizond/Alexandria"). That is the result of the Ottoman millet system, the strong Greek communal spirit and 19th-century Greek nationalism. According to your very narrow definitions, Eleftherios Venizelos could never have become Prime Minister of Greece in 1910, since Crete was not part of Greece until 1913! Nationality politics are never as clear-cut as you consider them to be (in other words, identity papers never override identity feeling), otherwise the Balkans wouldn't have had the mess they had in the past 100 years... Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet Venizelos, a Cretan, became Prime Minister of Greece whilst Crete was an independent country. If he competed at the Olympic Games he would have been an international Olympian. But there is a big difference between the words Pan-Hellenic and Pan-Hellenism. Pan-Hellenism includes the Greek diaspora but Pan-Hellenic does not. A diaspora Greek may well be a part of Pan-Hellenism but not part of the subset Pan-Hellenic. You only have to compare the Greek words Pan-Ellhnio and Pan-Ellhnismos to know the difference and their roots are Greek. Pan-Ellhnio excludes the diaspora Greeks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

100% wrong here. Πανελληνισμός does mean all of the Greeks, including the diaspora, but Πανελλήνιον can mean the same (indeed, since the term is ancient, and predates the formation of a Greek nation-state, that's exactly what it means). Constantine ✍ 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Er ... we appear to agree on the definition of Panhellenism. But Panellhnio is a Panhellhnio and unfortunately neither Macedonia, Smyrna, Crete or Constantinople qualified then and neither Smyrna or Constantinople qualify now and arguably there are parts of Macedonia that don't qualify now. Don't you remember the arguments that all countries used to have over foreign-born competitors. Ethnicity carried no weight then. In fact there was a time when football teams had to have local athletes. But ofcourse refugees formed their own teams in Greece too. We are arguing about the definition of Panhellhnio when the most important definition is that of the word "international". The ethnic Greeks born outside of Greece were internationals. They were not Greek citizens. They may well have been welcomed with open arms as Greek citizens. Grant you that. But up till that moment they were foreign-born citizens. Therefore the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas were internationals. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

Your Egyptian example is an interesting example. From 1896 each athlete stood behind a flag. That's when the flags were introduced. Each person is entitled to represent any nation they please but in 1859, 1870, and 1875 they represented themselves and where they were from. Any Greek from Constantinople or Smyrna would be justly proud to be from there (Ottoman-occupied or not). They were not at the Games representing Greece or Athens. They were there representing themselves and representing Constantinople and Smyrna in exactly the same way they would have represented them in the ancient Olympic Games. As for the Greek from Egypt who chose to represent Greece that's great. He's on record for representing Greece. Great. However, if he was born in Egypt, was an Egyptian citizen and had an Egyptian passport, and was the only competitor who was not born in Greece (that was not the case in actuality), then that event would still be an international. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

QED

You completely miss the point. The 1896 games were international because there were not only Greeks (ethnic or otherwise), but also Germans, Russians, English, Americans, French etc. As for the Ottoman Greeks, make an effort and look at the relevant sources: the Ottoman Greeks participated for Greece as Greeks, and the Ottoman Empire is not even listed as a participating nation. That proves what I said earlier. Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oxi. The Ottoman Greeks did not participate for Greece. How could they? You claim these games were Pan-Ellhnia. All competitors competed for themselves and due to the format of the results they automatically represented the city that they came from. Nevertheless, when one athlete from a foreign country, nation, empire, state, or anything else you would like to call it the event is by default an international. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if all competitors represented themselves (which they did), it also means that they did not represent their country of origin. No nation was officially represented in the Games, yet all the participants were ethnic Greeks or naturalized Greeks. That most emphatically does not count as international. Constantine ✍ 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant For the competition to be an international it had to have at least two competitors from two different countries. Representation is unimportant. What is important is nationality. The Ottomans did not have Greek nationality and they were not born within the boundaries of the country called Greece. Therefore all of the Olympic Games sponsored by Evangelis Zappas were internationals. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have already proved that Mindler was not an ethnic Greek. The 1859, 1870, 1875 Olympic Games were not restricted to ethnic Greeks. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Already proved that the Games were not Pan-Hellenic either since neither Macedonia, Constantinople, Smyrna or Crete were part of a country called Greece in 1859 or 1875 or at any time before (not even in ancient Greece which was a group of nation states and there was no country called Greece before 1821). Funnily enough, neither is Bavaria (Mindler put the international in to the word "international"). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Mindler, there is an interesting thought: Mindler was born in Greece, thus, by Greek law, he was a Greek citizen. Also, his parents were in all probability some of the many Bavarians came over to Greece and settled there during the reign of King Otto. There are still many people with decidedly Germanic surnames in Greece, but they have been thoroughly assimilated even from the 19th century. My hunch is that Mindler did not compete for Bavaria, but as a citizen of his adopted homeland, just as (to use one of your examples) Pete Sampras did for the US. Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mindler competed for himself just like everybody else but he was not an ethnic Greek. So, which is it? Is Mindler Greek because he was born in Greece? Which then begs the question: Is Velissariou not Greek because he was born outside of Greece? One or the other. You can't have both. Either Mindler is a German and Velissariou is a Greek OR Mindler is a Greek and Velissariou is an Ottoman. It's make your mind up time. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is right. There should be no ambiguity. You will see on the ticket for the 1859 Games that the ticket is for the 1859 Olympics. It was not called the Zappas Olympics in 1859 by the officials who organised the Games. It was called the Olympic Games. Since the 1859, 1870, and 1875 Olympic Games happened before the 1896 Olympic Games (and which could not have happened without the refurbished stadium originally sponsored and refurbished by Zappas) then these Games have more right to be called Olympic Games than even those that are held under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. But don't call them something that they were not called on the ticket or on the programme of the event. These were not officially known as the Zappas Games. These were officially known as the Olympic Games. Let's not be ambiguous by inventing a new name for these Olympic Games. If you or Wikipedia want to distinguish between the two events because different organisers were involved then why not call the IOC's Olympic Games the IOC Games? After all, Zappas was there first. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In Greek, Ζάππειες Ολυμπιάδες ("Zappeian Olumpics") is the standard name to refer to these games, in order to distinguish them from the IOC Olympics. Read WP:NAME and the relevant guidelines. The need to disambiguate overrides native names. Thus we have "Republic of Macedonia" and not plain "Macedonia", or "Byzantine Empire" and not "Roman Empire" or the likes. Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is considered to be the standard Greek name it is technically wrong. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were not Olympiads. They did not take place every four years. They were Olympic Games that were held as soon as was possible because it took time to organise the very first couple of Olympic Games and the Greek government kept sabotaging the planning. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard by whose standards? By a bunch of scholars who have failed to record history correctly. It doesn't matter what the event is called today. What matters is what it was called then. As for Wikipedia's "Republic of Macedonia" what happened to the formal name of "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard as in everyday and scholarly usage. As for the scholars "who have failed to record history correctly", you are welcome to write your own book on the subject. Your personal opinion unfortunately doesn't carry as much weight. Constantine ✍ 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning to write a book on the subject but I am writing articles for the journal of the International Society of Olympic Historians and have already published some articles on the subject in other publications. I have introduced facts that scholars have failed to mention in to some of my Olympic exhibitions. Personal opinions carry weight when they are based on facts and there is nothing better. We are all responsible for how the facts are recorded and presented. When the facts are wrong, and assuming that we care, we have to try to get them righted. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way is the Zappas.org website interesting but not reliable? Unreliable in what sense? But also, interesting in what sense? List any incorrect facts that you have found on the website. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting in the way that it is interesting to anyone who does not actually know anything about the pre-history of the modern Olympics, and non-reliable in that it is an advocacy site (however noble or correct their aim, it marks them as inherently non-neutral). A site which includes phrase slike "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) must formally recognise", or "Misinformation and propaganda" clearly has an agenda. I may agree with parts of it, I also agree that it must be added to the link list in these articles, but it cannot be used as a source in itself. Only where it cites other, reviewed/scholarly published works or news items can it be used. Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The site does cite other reviewed/scholarly published works. All of the content on that site is factual. It also contains much original information that has been cross-referenced widely. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

No, it has some links, e.g. to newspaper articles, which qualify as sources. But anyone can put up a website, without the proper credentials it simply does not qualify as WP:RS. Constantine ✍ 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No. It not only has links it also has scholarly references including Prof Young's book. If only the references on Wikipedia were as good as the source references on Zappas.org. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1859 Olympic Games was not held in Omonoia Square. It was held in a square called Loudouvikou (Ludwig in Greek). However, that square no longer exists and is probably called something else. Do you have a reference that says that the original square was turned in to Plateia Omonoia? Because I know for a fact that it was not held in a square that was called Omonoia at the time. Whatever reference you have used is wrong. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet again you presume to teach me about Greek history. The square was called Loudovikou after Otto's father. When he was overthrown in 1862, it was renamed to Omonoia ("Concord"). Constantine ✍ 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I was right then. The 1859 Olympic Games was held in Ludwig Square and what you are saying is that it was renamed to Omonoia (Unity) Square. Do you have a reference for that? And why not inform readers that the square had a different name in 1859. Are you 100 per cent certain that there were not more than one Ludwig Square and that the Ludwig Square that was used in 1859 is the Plateia Omonoia that we all know and love? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but according to the Games' character, apart from some specific exceptions they were considered 'panhellenic', or else 'national' since the vast majority were ethnic Greeks. On the other hand, none can deny that these Olympics were the forerunners of Coubertin's Olympics that started in 1896.

The 1859, 1870, and 1875 Olympic Games preceded the IOC without question. Moreover, the IOC used the stadium that was built in preparation for the 1870 Olympic Games. Moreover, the same stadium was reused during Olympic Games in 1906 and 2004. But it is wrong to ignore the contribution of Dr William Penny Brookes whose ideas were borrowed by Baron Pierre de Coubertin. Just as it is wrong to ignore that Dr Brookes also borrowed events from the programme of the 1859 Athens Olympic Games. The Wenlock Olympian Society used to claim that Much Wenlock was the birthplace of the Olympic Games. In that case, Baron Pierre de Coubertin must have buried his heart in the wrong place. I am reminded that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery when remembering that Zappas had his head buried at the Zappeion (it's under his statue). The sentiment is understandable "efage thn kefali tou" (Greek way of saying "he lost his head") with the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were intended by the organisers that the Games were Panhellenic the organisers singularly failed. Since a Panellhnio means exactly what it says (throughout Greece). I can deny that these Games were Panhellenic because there were competitors who attended who were from outside of Greece. It makes no difference that many of them were ethnic Greeks. Mindler (of Bavarian parentage) was born inside Greece and could be considered to be a member of the subset Panellhnio but Panellhnismos is a completely different thing from Panellhnio. Completely different. And Panellhnismos includes the foreign-born diaspora unlike Panellhnio which does not. As for the word national remember that Greece was a very small country in 1821, 1859 and 1875. Greece is more than twice the size today. A number of competitors were from outside of the boundaries of the country that was called Greece. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

About the place the 1859 contests took place, it seems that sources are contradicting each other, Loudowikou sqr could be either in today's Koumoundourou or Omonoia sqr.Alexikoua (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the Koumoundourou was to have been named for Ludwig in the original planning for the city, (von Klentze's plans) but was not. I remember reading about the renaming in Fotiadis (Όθων - Η Έξωση) Constantine ✍ 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then everything's clear.Alexikoua (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Prof Young's book "The Modern Olympics" says that the square where the 1859 Olympic Games was held is called Koumoundourou today (originally called Plateia Loudovikou) and not Omonoia. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, I checked up again (I hadn't read Fotiadis in years): Indeed, Koumoundourou was Loudovikou, while Omonoia was named Othonos (Otto's Square) before 1863. Memory failed me here... Apologies for the error. Constantine ✍ 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for checking. The question of whether or not the 1859, 1870, and 1875 Olympic Games were international or not rests on the following: "Either Mindler is a German and Velissariou is a Greek OR Mindler is a Greek and Velissariou is an Ottoman." My own opinion is that Mindler is a Greek and Velissariou is an Ottoman and that is based on place of birth (their ethnicity although important to the individuals themselves does not affect their nationality). Mindler has Bavarian parents but he was born in Greece. Velissariou may have ethnically Greek parents (who were also born in the Ottoman Empire) but either way he was born in Smyrna and his nationality is not Greek. How could his nationality be Greek when Greece was an independent country and he was from a city that had been occupied by the Ottoman Turks for more than three centuries? And the question does not just rest with Velissariou. It also rests with the Macedonian, the Cretan, and the Constantinopoliti. Also bear in mind that if Smyrna were part of the Russian Empire that Velissariou would be considered a Russian and not a Greek despite his ethnicity. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the dilemma that you present is not that exclusive nor correct. You persistently ignore the nature of self-identification. "International" means from many nations, ethne. Ethnicity is different from nationality, we agree on this. But you give precedence to the term "nationality", which is defined by the passport one holds, I (and most people in the 19th century) to ethnicity, which is defined by what nation one feels belonging to. When you have games where only ethnic Greeks participate (and a single Greek citizen of Bavarian origin), I can tell you straight away that to everyone present there, these games would have been "for Greeks", and I think the Bavarian too saw himself the same way (the process of hellenization among the Bavarians was very strong and rapid, as mentioned before). I know my country's history and its people's mentality, but you'll say, that is irrelevant because of the facts. Only problem is, it is your reading of the facts that makes you want to term them "international", when only people who felt like belonging to a single nation participated (I repeat that no one, not Velisariou, not anyone in Athens would consider him or the others from abroad an "Ottoman". I can't state this strongly enough.) And I am not alone in saying this either. It is very clearly stated in the article, supported by citations from the books below: "Although they could be termed as the first Olympic Games of the present tradition, it was far from being an international festival. They had a distinctly national character, since the participants were exclusively of Greek ethnicity, coming both from inside the independent Greek state and the Greek diaspora." And IMO, that's that. The Games were important, and certainly direct precursors to the 1896 Olympics. No one can deny their importance or Zappas' role (heck, that's why Alexis wrote this article), but in their scope they were more limited than the IOC Games, and that also is a fact. You are trying to push through an opinion that seems to be personal and not supported by either the facts (cf my and Alexi's contrary interpretation) or what the scholars say.

As for including the events of later games for the Zappeion and Panathenaic stadium, the 1896 games are obviously OK, since the revival of the Olympics began there, and the infrastructure as built by Zappas, but the 1906 and 2004 games are a much less relevant to this article, which is about the Zappas Games. And certainly, it does not belong to the lead (read WP:LEAD and WP:SS). As an aside, "Panhellenic" can mean two things: either from "all Greece" or from "all Greeks", inside and outside Greece. In the 19th century, most Greeks lived outside Greece, and the latter was the primary connotation. Today, when the extent of the Greek nation is limited by the boundaries of the Greek state, the former has become prevalent (but again, any diaspora Greek can participate in Panhellenic things). "Panhellenistic" doesn't exist. Constantine ✍ 07:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the use of the Panathenian stadium for 1906 and 2004 less relevant to a section about the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas? The stadium that Zappas refurbished for the first modern international Olympic Games was used in 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906 and 2004. Ofcourse that's relevant. The 1896 and 1906 Olympic Games would not have happened without the stadium that Zappas rebuilt. Instead we would have had an ineffectual so-called revival of the Olympic Games in modern times in Paris in 1900 (because that is when the Exposition was planned) without a stadium and with a programme that would not resemble an athletic games. Moreover, there would have been no connection with the Olympic Games or with Greece. In reality it was just a side-show that should never have been called an Olympic Games. It is a farce that the IOC considers these Games to be "Olympic" and fails to recognise the truly Olympic Games of 1870, 1875 and 1896. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the word "Panhellenistic" does exist. Look at the first reference on Google.com. But I admit that it is the very first time that I've ever used the word. I understand your point of view. Ethnic Greeks are ethnic Greeks and it doesn't matter where they come from. But the fact is that the Ottomans were not born inside Greece, chances are that some of them had never been to Greece before the Games, therefore they did not have a formal identity that you could call "Greek". They had the informal identity granted but no formal identity as Greeks. Fact is that the Cretan had a formal identity as a Cretan. The Bavarian had a formal identity as a Greek. Of the Ottomans that had formal identities their formal identities would have been undoubtedly Ottoman. The problem is that the International Olympic Committee regularly claims that it organised the "first modern international Olympic Games". Zappas easily challenges the IOC for the "first modern international Olympic Games". Greeks were distributed far and wide throughout the coastal regions of Europe. In 1859 almost none of them had a formal Greek identity. It doesn't matter that they were ethnic Greek. It doesn't matter that they wanted to be Greek nationals or considered as good as. If they were born in a foreign country then the Olympic Games that were organised by Zappas were international. Moreover, if they were born on land that was never a part of Greece prior to 1913, such as Crete, the Cretan alone internationalises these Games without the help of the Bavarian, the Macedonian, or the Smyrnan or the Constantinopoliti. The definition of the word "international" and this is after all the critical definition means that at least two competitors attended from at least two different countries. I count at least two separate countries: Greece and the Ottoman Empire and I can also argue that Crete is a third. I also count at least two different ethnicities (Greek and Bavarian). That makes the Games international without question. Nor is it correct to suggest that a Panellhnio includes foreign-born ethnic Greeks. A Panellhnio is for residents of Greece (otherwise you'd get the greatest ethnic-Greek sportsmen of the world competing). The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were more than Panellhnia they were international without doubt. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. I will change the lead again: "The Zappas Olympics (Greek: Ζάππειες Ολυμπιάδες) is a popular name for the Olympic Games held in 1859, 1870 and 1875 that were sponsored by Evangelis Zappas." creates redundancies. The term "Olympics" is already stated, while "Olympic Games" is commonly associated with the later, post-1896 events, hence producing confusion. "Intended to revive" doesn't mean they failed, it means that that was their inspiration, which is true. I'll also remove the references to the later Games and rephrase the lead to highlight the importance to the Olympic revival. Constantine ✍ 07:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. "Intended to revive" insinuates failure. These Olympic Games were a revival and the Olympic Games that followed stood on their foundations. You are watering down what actually happened to the point that you are making the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Evangelis Zappas appear insignificant. Insignificant they were not. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were the first to be hosted in a stadium in modern times. That is not insignificant. Nobody else on the planet could afford to do this. Nobody else on the planet had the resources to do it. Zappas had to refurbish an ancient stadium to do it. It's a big deal. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are overreacting. Did you read the new lead? "The success of these games contributed decisively to the revival of the Olympic idea in the 19th century" is hardly "insinuating failure" or "watering down" their importance, I'd say. As for 'Nobody else on the planet could afford to do this. Nobody else on the planet had the resources to do it.", come on, Zappas wasn't the 19th century's Bill Gates... His contribution is vital, but let's not exaggerate things out of proportion... Constantine ✍ 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No I am not over-reacting. Zappas was a very wealthy individual and it is hard to find wealthier individuals in eastern Europe at that time. The point is that Zappas was the only individual with the desire and the finances to make it happen. No exaggeration. Olympic "idea" is not enough. It was not an idea. It was not a feasibility study. It was not a plan. It was not a "think about doing it". It was a done deal. Zappas put his money on the table. He bought the ancient stadium and the land around it. He paid for its refurbishment. He paid for the building of the Zappeion. No other individual in Greece at that time made a comparable investment with their own cash for a historical ideal and nobody else on the planet invested so much money in to reviving the Olympic Games. Can you name one from the mid 1800s or even the early 1900s? I certainly can't think of one. And Averoff came well after Zappas for another refurbishment of the Panathenian stadium (which would not have been necessary had the government of Greece followed Zappas' instructions to the letter, the second refurbishment was a result of the government's incompetence). "Olympic idea" sounds like the "Megali idea" it's not terminology that has been used by any historian since Zappas put his money on the table. Neither Brookes or Coubertin put money on the table for the Olympic Games. Coubertin was encouraging everybody else to splash out. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here ("Zappas put his money on the table") you raise a valid point. let's see what we can do to emphasize that. Constantine ✍ 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to see the funny side of this discussion. You accept without question, as you should, that Mindler, whose parents were Bavarian, is a Greek national because he was born in Greece. We can also call him a Bavarian-Greek because he was a Greek with Bavarian ethnicity. But when I look at someone who was not born inside Greece and who is not a Greek national you cannot accept that his nationality is not Greek because he speaks Greek and his great-great-great-grandparents were ethnic Greek and lived in a state where the predominant language was Greek. Then how do you accept without question that the ethnic-Bavarian is a Greek? Where is the logic in that? It is an ancient notion, and a romantic one, that everyone who speaks Greek is Greek without question and I know it is a notion that still carries weight. In ancient Greece the only qualification for being Greek was the ability to speak the language and anybody who did not speak Greek was not Greek and generally considered to be a barbarian. But despite their linguistic abilities it does not change the fact that Ottomans who were born outside of the geographical boundaries of modern Greece were not born in Greece and were not citizens of Greece. Some of the athletes that attended the 1859, 1870 and 1875 Olympic Games came from outside of the geographical boundaries of Greece and therefore those Games were international. It is not mandatory to wave flags or make formal representation of nationality since an international event is by default an international event when at least two people attend from two different countries. Therefore all of the Olympic Games organised by Zappas were internationals and the ethnic-Bavarian was one of the Greek citizens competing at the Games. Back to the funny side and from the perspective of an Ancient Greek - clearly the Bavarian was not a barbarian. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We continue to disagree on the same issues over and over. I see your point, there were athletes not born in Greece who held foreign passports who competed, but I disagree on the conclusions: since the participating athletes represented only themselves or their respective localities, and no one among them represented any nation, the games were not an international competition as such, i.e. a competition between nations. OK, but the participants, you rightly say, did not only come from Greece, hence their background, even as individuals, was international. Yes, but, if everyone among them was, by one measure or another, Greek, that should indicate that this has some importance. What sort of "International" games were these where everyone was Greek? What sort of "international" games would the 2008 Beijing Olympics be, if only Chinese citizens and people of Chinese descent participated (and no mention was even made to any other nation during the games, i.e. a flag parade or the likes?)? If that notion doesn't seem distinctly "un-international" to you, I really can't understand you.

What is there to disagree with? The ethnic Greeks from the Ottoman Empire were not born in Greece. Therefore their participation internationalised the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. You are prepared to accept that Mindler the Bavarian is Greek because he was born in Greece but you are not prepared to accept the fact that Greek-Ottomans were not born in Greece and therefore did not have Greek nationality. Is that so hard to accept? And indeed nor had their great-grandparents Greek nationality. With your Chinese example if competitors attended from Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) or Myanmar or Singapore then yes those Games would be international whether or not those flags were raised since it only takes two people from two different countries to make an international. In fact, those flags were raised during the Beijing 2008 Games. The flag of the Ottoman Empire was raised at Olympic Games prior to 1924 (i.e. not including 1924 since that flag was Turkey's flag). Your argument is that ethnicity is the be all and end all (despite Mindler) and that ethnicity is enough to prevent these Olympics from being called international. My argument is that where you are born decides your nationality whether you like it or not. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You also use the "Panhellenic" argument, remaining convinced that Πανελλήνιο refers to the geographic bounds of the Greek state, when it does not (BTW, Panhellenistic as a term does exist in English, but not in Greek). Foreign-born athletes do indeed regularly compete in Greece even today, as ομογενείς (i.e. ethnic Greeks of non-Greek nationality), ethnic Greeks take part in the Πανελλήνιες high-school exams, etc. In 1860, the Greek state had perhaps 1,5 million citizens, but more than 3 million Greeks were living outside it. Under such circumstances, being "Greek" simply can not be pushed into the straitjacket of the Greek kingdom. The definition of "Greek" as pertaining to a specific territory identical to the Greek state (or, for that matter, that being Greek equalled having Greek citizenship) came about only after the population exchange of 1923. As long as you ignore that fact, we'll never agree on this issue.

I'm talking about 1859, 1870, and 1875. What happened in 1923 is not relevant. What happens in Panhellenia today is also not relevant particularly since they clearly are no longer national games in themselves. But since you have brought them in to this discussion I bet you could find competitors of the Panhellenia that cannot speak Greek. But ofcourse your argument is that their ethnicity overrides their place of birth and that their nationality is unimportant (despite the fact that nationality is the only thing that is considered for "internationality"). Modern Panhellenia are clearly international games in their own right. That was the case in 1859 and that is the case today. Bearing in mind that the 1859 Olympic Games were called "Olympics" and were not called "Panhellenia".Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the lead section and me "fabricating history", I really cannot see what you find objectionable to labelling the "Zappas Olympics" as "athletic events". That is what the Olympics are, surely? And the title "Olympics/Olympic Games" is already mentioned in the very name "Zappas Olympics". For better or for worse, when you say "the Zappas Olympics were a series of Olympic Games", most people will scratch their heads, since "Olympic Games" for them means the IOC Olympics. We've been through that before, there is the need to disambiguate and to be consistent in nomenclature.

For one, Zappas never called them the "Zappas Olympics". He called them "Olympics". In fact, even the scholar Professor Young when he shows a photocopy of a ticket from 1859 in his book "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" references the image as follows:

On page 146 "Figure 13.4 Ticket to the 1859 (Zappas) Olympics in Athens"

because he recognises that those Olympics were not called Zappas Olympics. That's a better way of referencing the ticket btw than using the words "Zappas Olympics" without the brackets. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

And why are they not called "Soutsos Olympics" or "Soutsos Olympics sponsored by Zappas" why is Soutsos ignored?

It doesn't make any difference what most people think or what propaganda and misinformation they have been fed for decades. The fact is that the Olympic Games of 1859 were called "Olympics". They were not called "Zappas Olympics". They were not called "Zappas Games". Many people (most Brookes and Coubertin supporters) call them that to separate them. But the fact of the matter is that these were "Olympic Games" and there is a scholarly reference at the bottom of this section that proves it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, when competitors from the Ottoman Empire attended the Athens 1896 Olympic Games they were considered as international competitors from a foreign country. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, what I oppose here is your determination to push through the view espoused by Zappas.org, that these games represented the "first genuine modern international Olympics", and that they should perhaps be officially recognized as such. The problem is a) established practice (i.e. by the vast majority of people and scholars) dictates that "Olympic Games" alone refers to the IOC events, beginning in 1896, b) that by all accounts the Wenlock Olympics played an equally important role, and c) that you have failed so far to provide a clear-cut reference (conforming to WP:RS and WP:CITE, i.e. a boom with page numbers) to support the idea that this notion is accepted even by some scholars. To be also perfectly clear, I wholeheartedly agree that the IOC are a bunch of shady, money-grubbing bastards, and that Zappas' contribution was both vital and under-appreciated. BUT, this article is here to present the facts, and not for us to loudly proclaim "the Truth" (i.e. our WP:OR/WP:POV, whether it has merits or not) or to crusade for apologies by the IOC.

To sum up by way of an example, this debate reminds me of the endless debates over at Talk:Byzantine Empire, where a few editors always push to merge it into "Roman Empire" or rename it to "Roman Empire (330-1453)", since the native name was "Empire of the Romans", and the name "Byzantine Empire" was a demeaning term invented in later ages by distinctly non-Byzantinophile Western historians. The argument certainly has merits, and everything in it is true, but it is always rejected, since a major guideline here is to follow established convention, and not to make up our own rules (in other words, WP puts verifiability before "truth"). The same applies to the Zappas Olympics. Regards, Constantine ✍ 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The view of Zappas.org is no different from my own view. I can provided references for every single fact within the scholarly works of Professor Young ("The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" and "A Brief Hisoty of the Olympic Games"). The only fact that is original is the word "international" since only Zappas.org has put two and two together to work out that the 1859 Olympic Games were international.

Here is a scholarly reference that will give you more than enough ammunition (quoted verbatim from Professor Young's book called "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" (Blackwell Publishing, 2004. by Prof. David C. Young) which includes all Olympic Games from when the ancients first conceived them:

"Chapter 13 The Origin and Authenticity of the Modern Olympic Games

The Ghosts of Olympics Past

It was Plato who first suggested that the Olympics be revived in modern times - or rather it was his ghost. The ghost of Plato expresses this "odd idea" in an 1833 poem by the Greek poet Panagiotis Soutsos. The phrase "odd idea" comes from a reporter with the British Broadcasting Corporation (Mark Whitaker, radio interview with author, 2000). He claims we are so accustomed to the modern Olympics now that we fail to notice how odd, innovative, and unique an idea it was to revive the ancient games. It is true. Many features of our culture have probably evolved, in part, from similar features in ancient Greece; one thinks of such things as drama, democracy, and even modern medicine. Others, such as some types of art, imitate Greek prototypes. Yet it seems that we have revived no other Greek institution. It is an odd idea, or so it seems when one reflects on it." [page 139]

"The games' return to Greece in 2004 is a mark not only of a respite from their century-long odyssey, but also a return to their roots - not only their ancient roots but to their modern roots as well. Most people who care still think that the modern games are the brainchild of a Frenchman, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, and Coubertin alone, Olympic officials and the media have told us for a century, was the first and only person to have this happy idea. Then he almost single-handedly implemented it, holding the first modern Olympics in Athens, in 1896. To this day the IOC and the media still maintain this illusion, and most people, even most Greeks follow it like a flock of sheep. But it is quite wrong.

Our modern games are, in fact, the brainchild of a modern Greek, and modern Greece had Olympic Games before Coubertin was even born. England had Olympic Games when Coubertin was still a toddler. Coubertin was important to the revival, and deserves much of the credit. But so do some other unsung fathers of the Olympic idea, an idea which I believe Coubertin never could have conceived on his own." [pages 139/140]

"The seed of the modern Olympic revival was first planted on Attic soil by a modern Greek poet, but it was a seed which that poet, Panagiotis Soutsos, took from the ancient olive at Olympia. Like many Greek intellectuals of the early nineteenth century." [page 140]

"He decided that Greece should seek to restore its ancient glory. In Soutsos' 1833 poem "Dialogues of the Dead." the ghost of Plato gazes up from the underworld. He wonders aloud if he is really looking at Greece, and addresses the new nation: "Where are your Olympic Games(Soutsos 1834:15; Young 1996: 3)."

"In 1835, he sent a long memo to the government, proposing that Greece revive the Ancient Olympic Games as an emblem and part of its new independence.

[King] Otto agreed to a great national festival with contests in industry, agriculture, and ancient Greek athletic games. But he did nothing about it. Soutsos put his proposal in print and in public, pleading to his king: "Let the ancient Olympic Games be revived in Athens." " [page 141/2]

"Evangelis Zappas was a veteran of the Greek War of Independence. A truly extraordinary, even enigmatic person, he was born to Greek parents in southern Albania. In the 1850s he lived in Romania, where he had become one of the richest men in Eastern Europe, with vast land holdings and many other enterprises. He never set foot in Athens, nor near it. But he learned of Soutsos' Olympic idea and he liked it. He liked it so much that in 1856 he too asked the Greek government to revive the Olympics in Athens. But this time Zappas said that he, Zappas, would pay for it all." [page 142]

"In the autumn of 1858 Dr Brookes was reading his local newspaper when a small item caught his eye. This brief article concerned the new Greek Olympics that were to take place at Athens in 1859. This news interested Brookes so much that he clipped the article and pasted it - just a few inches long - in one of his scrapbooks, where it remains for viewing to this day. Brookes kept numerous clippings in his scrapbbooks, and all his personal correspondence, even handwritten copies of his own letters sent to others. His meticulous records of all his activities prove that our Olympic movement is a single, continuous movement - from Soutsos' first poetic idea to Sydney 2000 and beyond." [page 144]

ok ... is that enough scholarly reference work for what Wikipedia needs? I'll let you do the honours since everybody usually deletes my contributions even when they are referenced (usually the Brookes or Coubertin supporters, even though I agree that they are all founders and deserve credit). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, very well. These citations will be useful to support the fact that these games were pivotal to the rebirth of the Olympics, not that that was in doubt. They essentially repeat what has been said in the article already. There is no reference to the Zappas Olympics being international, however (quite the contrary, I'd say, based on "Otto agreed to a great national festival"). Anyway, good work, I'll incorporate them over the next few days... Constantine ✍ 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But Otto did nothing and there was no national festival. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

International

[This para has been cut and pasted from the previous section to separate the discussion on the international issue] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the dilemma that you present is not that exclusive nor correct. You persistently ignore the nature of self-identification. "International" means from many nations, ethne. Ethnicity is different from nationality, we agree on this. But you give precedence to the term "nationality", which is defined by the passport one holds, I (and most people in the 19th century) to ethnicity, which is defined by what nation one feels belonging to. When you have games where only ethnic Greeks participate (and a single Greek citizen of Bavarian origin), I can tell you straight away that to everyone present there, these games would have been "for Greeks", and I think the Bavarian too saw himself the same way (the process of hellenization among the Bavarians was very strong and rapid, as mentioned before). I know my country's history and its people's mentality, but you'll say, that is irrelevant because of the facts. Only problem is, it is your reading of the facts that makes you want to term them "international", when only people who felt like belonging to a single nation participated (I repeat that no one, not Velisariou, not anyone in Athens would consider him or the others from abroad an "Ottoman". I can't state this strongly enough.) And I am not alone in saying this either. It is very clearly stated in the article, supported by citations from the books below: "Although they could be termed as the first Olympic Games of the present tradition, it was far from being an international festival. They had a distinctly national character, since the participants were exclusively of Greek ethnicity, coming both from inside the independent Greek state and the Greek diaspora." And IMO, that's that. The Games were important, and certainly direct precursors to the 1896 Olympics. No one can deny their importance or Zappas' role (heck, that's why Alexis wrote this article), but in their scope they were more limited than the IOC Games, and that also is a fact. You are trying to push through an opinion that seems to be personal and not supported by either the facts (cf my and Alexi's contrary interpretation) or what the scholars say.

International does not mean "from many nations" more specifically it means "between nations". Between two nations is "international". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No not by the passport one holds but by the country one is born in. Hence why Mindler is a Greek national and not an ethnic Greek. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference what their feelings were. Only the facts count. The Ottomans were not born in the modern country created in 1821 that is called Greece. In fact, even their ethnicity is questionable since the only reason that they were called Greek is that they and their ancestors spoke Greek (Greeks were Ellhnofoni and that is what made them Greek). The Bavarian Mindler automatically became a Greek when he spoke fluent Greek and would not be considered a Greek if he could not speak fluent Greek. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Exclusively, of Greek ethnicity". No. Mindler was an ethnic Bavarian. Not exclusively. We have the problem that the Greek word for nation is "ethnos" and the Greek words for "ethnic" and "nationality" are all derived from that same word. The Ancient Greeks were from many nation states and ethnic groups hence the Peloponnesian Wars that Thucydides wrote about. What tied them together was the Greek language. No, using the word "ethnicity" is an excuse. The participants were born outside of what was called Greece at the time. Their great-great-grandparents were born outside of Greece. The Ottomans did not have Greek nationality, they did not have Greek birthright, they were third-class christian citizens who were treated like cattle to be milked and driven by the Ottoman Turks. They were little better than slaves that could speak Greek. They had no nation. They hadn't even yet fought to liberate Greece. In fact, quite the opposite, there were many who fought for the Turks as mercenaries and including Zappas. Today the concepts of nationality and ethnic group are divorced. Nationality is fundamentally where you are born and not based on your roots or the language that you speak. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholars say that the games were Panhellenic. But I have listed factual evidence as to why the Games were not Panhellenic. We know what a Panellhnio is. We know what ethnicity is. We know what an international is. Zappas didn't call the games Panhellenic. He called them "Olympic" after Soutsos' idea to revive the Olympic Games. There is no evidence in any document at the time that the games were Panhellenic. In fact, the games was mentioned in newspapers throughout the world. The event was mentioned internationally. Foreigners were not excluded. Foreign ethnicities were not excluded. Anybody who wanted to participate was more than welcome to. The fact is that in 1859 not many people (who had the desire in the first place) could afford to travel all the way to Athens or had the time to travel all the way to Greece. Very few people had any idea what sport was. Zappas did not call them Panhellenic and he did not call them International. Zappas called them "Olympic" as suggested by Soutsos. But the scholars call it Panhellenic so we the sheep bleat "Panhellenic" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"We know what a Panellhnio is". No, I am sorry, but apparently you don't. "Foreign ethnicities were not excluded", perhaps, but the fact is that only ethnic Greeks participated. We report what happened, not what could have happened had more people had the money or the desire to journey to Greece. Even Young, on whom you seem to rely almost exclusively, says clearly: "athletes from all points of the Greek world came to participate, from Crete to Constantinople." (2004, p. 148) As for your disdain for the scholars, I've said it again and again, that is how Wikipedia operates. Your original research does not count. Constantine ✍ 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But Mindler was not an ethnic Greek (but he was born in Greece). I contacted Prof Young personally, after he wrote the book, and put it to him that these Olympics were international and he agreed with me. I have also met Prof Young personally. Unfortunately, the Ottoman Empire was not part of the Greek world at that time. The Ottoman Empire was part of the Turkish world. You are ignoring the fact that these citizens were not born in Greece. Scholars can be corrected and it is our duty to do so. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For the n-th time, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire comprising Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, etc. The Greek world at the time extended well beyond the Greek state, incl. large parts of the Ottoman Empire, but also southern Russia. This does not mean that these states were Greek, just that they hosted considerable Greek communities. That is a historically accepted fact. As long as you persist in willfully ignoring the ethnically mixed realities of the 19th century, your arguments are plainly false. As for meeting Prof. Young, that may well be true, but a) there is no way to verify that your claims are true, b) what he wrote in his book is pretty clear, and we go with published sources, c) you are not a scholar, and your personal opinion does not (again, for the n-th time) constitute a proper source for Wikipedia. I will say this for the last time: restrict yourself to reporting what the scholarly sources say, not what you personal opinions are. Please read the Wikipedia policies that I have linked again and again, since it appears you have failed to do so. Constantine ✍ 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

At least you acknowledge that the Ottoman Empire is not part of the independent country called Greece that was founded in 1821. We are making some progress. I am not ignoring the mixed ethnicities of the Ottomans but you appear to be ignoring where these Ottomans were born. They were born outside Greece. From 1859 these Olympic Games were attended by athletes from many countries: "As in antiquity, athletes from all over the Greek-speaking world, north to south, east to west -- from as far away as Turkey, Crete, Cyprus, and Albania -- came to compete in these Olympics." p21 Prof Young (1996). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the Ottoman Empire was part of Greece. Please don't put words in my mouth. As for the reference you just gave, read it again: "athletes from all over the Greek-speaking world", i.e. the athletes who came were Greek-speakers, that's what they had in common, just as the athletes of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Sicily or Macedon in antiquity did, even though there was no singular Greek state back then. The point Young makes, the point that is obvious to everyone except you, is that all participating athletes were there because they were, in some measure or other, Greek. To speak of them having an "international" background merely because they were born in different countries is as misleading as saying that in the ancient Olympics, no Greeks participated because no one came from any country called "Greece". Constantine ✍ 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Ottoman Empire was not a part of Greece (which it was not) then these Olympic Games were international. As for Greek-speaking. The educated people of the world spoke Greek. If you didn't speak Greek you were little better than a barbarian in ancient times. It doesn't make one iota of difference what the ethnicity of the majority of the athletes was. The question is "did athletes participate from countries other than Greece?" and the answer is "yes they did". Therefore these Games were international. Trying to compare Ancient Greece with Modern Greece is like trying to compare a marble sculpture of the discobolos with a plastic sculpture of the discobolos. In Ancient Greece there was no country called Greece. It was an Empire mostly ruled over by the Athenians, the Macedonians, and the Spartans. Therefore the Ancient Olympic Games by their very nature and despite comprising athletes from the Greek-speaking world were also international. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, at the 1896 Athens Olympic Games there were competitors from the Ottoman Empire and they were considered to be international competitors from a foreign country. You can't have it both ways. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the head of King Otto was struck on the medals. He wasn't born in Greece either but obviously he may have had a Greek passport since he was the King of Greece at the time. So the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas had medals with the head of a Bavarian on them. How much more international do they need to be? I doubt that he could speak Greek very well and may well have qualified as a barbarian. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, but is that last argument supposed to be serious? He was the King of Greece, whose head did you expect to see on the medal, Pericles? This persistence to show that there were international elements begins to border on the ludicrous... Constantine ✍ 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already proved that the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were international without any doubt. The fact that the commemorative medals of the Olympic Games were also decorated with the head of man who was not born in Greece only polishes the argument. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do not perceive that last argument to be ridiculous and devoid of any objective merit, I am really done talking with you... Constantine ✍ 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you denying that the bust on the medal is of someone who was not born in Greece? Moreover, the only reason that he was in Greece was to be its King and for no other reason. It just adds another angle to the "internationality" of the Games that nobody can deny. Obviously he did not compete in the Games. He just lent his bust to the commemorative medals of the Games. He didn't even pay for the Games. Zappas did. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when does the motif used in a medal constitute a criterion for internationality of the participants? Are you pulling my finger? Constantine ✍ 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The bust on the medal is not a criteria for determining whether or not these Olympic Games were international. Participants attended from countries other than Greece. The point I was trying to make by pointing out that the King himself was not born in Greece, nor ethnically Greek, is to show exactly how ridiculous the claim that these Games were a national event. These Olympic Games were not a national event by any stretch of the imagination. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, the participants were either ethnic Greeks from "all corners of the Greek world" or Greek citizens (Otto and Mindler). What exactly does that make it if not a "national" event? Constantine ✍ 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the "Greek-speaking" world not "Greek world". Big difference there. Unfortunately, the white horse of the Ottoman Empire was marching over most of it. Unfortunately, Constantinople, Smyrna, Macedonia, Crete, Cyprus, what is Albania today, and parts of Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were not a part of the country that was called Greece in 1859. It was an international event in 1859, it would still be an international event if it were held today in 2009. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, please provide page numbers for the citations. Just citing the entire book doesn't count. Constantine ✍ 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ok. This I can do. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As though we needed any more evidence of the international nature of these Olympic Games. The Englishman Dr William Penny Brookes donated a prize cup and ten pounds sterling to the winner of the long-distance running event at the 1859 Athens Olympic Games. The winner of the race who was Petros Velissariou of Smyrna of the Ottoman Empire (and Izmir in Turkey today) was the first man on the honorary roll of the Wenlock Olympian Society. So you have one of the first international Olympians, a Greek-Ottoman from the Ottoman Empire, who was given a prize that was donated by an Englishman and a commemorative medal with the head of a Bavarian on it. How much more international do you want these Olympic Games to be. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the benefit of labelling these Olympic Games national? Isn't it in the best interests of Greece and the Greek people that the first modern international Olympic Games was held in Athens in 1859 and not 1896. After all that is what actually happened. Instead of the false French-speaking world version of the story which claims that the first modern international Olympic Games was held in Athens in 1896. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, if what interested me was to push through a particular POV, especially a pro-Greek one, then yes, it would be "in the best interests of Greece" and the like. Unfortunately however, I am interested in a) facts and b) maintaining WP policies. Facts are: 1) all participants were either ethnic Greeks or Greek citizens.

That does not make these Olympic Games any less international. You happily consider a Bavarian who was a Greek citizen by virtue of being born in Greece (and quite rightly so) but you do not give equal consideration to the fact ethnic Greeks born outside the boundaries of Greece are not Greek citizens and are in fact citizens of other countries. And that is a fact. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the games were not about citizenship. The Greek nation, I've said it time and time again, was not restricted to Greek citizens. And when all participants are either ethnic Greeks or Greek citizens, well, that is a fact that cannot be ignored. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your pseudo nation that comprises diaspora Greeks is a virtual entity. It is not an entity with recognised status in the world on an international basis. It does not have a flag or constitution. It does not have citizenship. It does not provide health-care. It does not provide pensions. What kind of a useless nation is that? The only benefit is that it doesn't tax you. Now that's a nation that I would like to be part of but unfortunately I am taxed by the nation that I'm in. So no benefit there. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2) three scholarly sources (Landry & Yerlè, Brownley and Young) draw attention tot he fact that the participants were drawn from the wider "Greek world", i.e. the "those guys, no matter where they lived, who identified as part of the Greek nation (attention: not the Greek state)". Your persistent attempts to make anyone living outside the then-current borders of the Greek kingdom somehow non-Greek are, simply put, a very narrow, pedantic and factually unsustainable view of history.

Incorrect. No. Not the "Greek world". Young said "Greek-speaking" world. And Young has many excerpts that prove the unquestionable international nature of these Olympics. In any case, the facts are that the Ottoman born Greeks were not born in a "Greek world". They were born in an Ottoman world. Again no. The ethnic Greeks were not part of the Greek nation. They were born outside of the Greek nation. It doesn't make any difference how they were identified mentally in any case, physically they were outside Greece. The fact is that these Olympics were open Olympics. They were not touted as Panhellenic Games. Nor do they qualify as Panhellenic Games when so many athletes participated from so many different countries. Your personal attack (anti-Wikipedia policy) can be used to describe your POV particularly since the history that I document is not based on a POV, the history that I document is based on facts and not perceptions. Zappas himself who was born in a region that is now part of Albania and lived in Romania for most of his life. Even Romania was considered a part of the Greek-speaking world. That doesn't make it Greek. Wallachia and Moldavia were not Greek, nor was Bessarabia. Even the sponsor of these Olympic Games was an international who was born outside of Greece. The Albanians claim he was Albanian and are very proud of him. The Romanians claim he was Romanian and are very proud of him. But the Greeks sweep him under the carpet and give priority to a Frenchman who wasn't even born when these Olympic Games got started and who didn't pay for the refurbishment or building of any stadiums and who played the Games as a side-show at Expositions, World Fairs and Exhibitions. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Young, A brief history of the Olympic games, p. 148: "from all points of the Greek world". As for "The ethnic Greeks were not part of the Greek nation" this statement is so wrong that I really can not begin to understand how you can seriously support this. You persistently limit the extent of a nation to the limits of the corresponding nation-state, yet conveniently forget that nations have existed before nation-states, that nations have existed without nation-states or within multi-ethnic empires. Did the Polish nation not exist before 1918, because there was no Polish state? Where they Russians, Germans or Austrians then? Did the Greeks not exist before 1829, when the Greek state was recognized? Do the Kurds not exist because there is no independent Kurdistan? There are regions in SE Turkey inhabited almost solely by Kurds. They constitute just as much part of the Kurdish world as any village near Arbil in Iraq, even if they are in different countries. I suggest you look up the meaning of "diaspora" somewhere. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Young's POV on "all points of the Greek world" is blatantly wrong. If he had said "Greek-speaking world" I would agree with him. But he didn't. He made a mistake. He is human. On most other things I agree with him. The Greece that we know today bears no similarity with what we call "Ancient Greece". Unfortunately, the nation that we call Greece today did not exist before 1821. It cannot be compared with what we call "Ancient Greece". Nor did what we call "Greeks" today have a nationality or citizenship identifiable as Greek before 1821. During Ottoman occupation they were Ottoman citizens. And in fact in Izmir they are still citizens of Turkey and not Greece. They have Turkish passports and they serve in the Turkish army. If there were a war between Greece and Turkey they would be forced to fight against Greece (as they have many times in the past). Kurds do not fly a Kurdish flag at the Olympic Games today. They don't exist as a nationality in the eyes of the world. No different to the Greeks during the Ottoman Empire. They are an ethnicity with no nation just like the Greeks during the Ottoman Empire. Just like the Palestinians in Israel today. I know what diaspora is. Clearly, you have no idea what a nation is. There was no Greek nation before 1821. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

3) there was no representation of nations, no athlete formally competed on behalf of any nation, but all the participants were in some way or another, Greek, even if from different states, in the same way that happened in the ancient Olympics, whose spirit they were supposed to emulate anyway. If the Ionian Greeks from the Persian Empire came to compete, would you then say that Persia participated in the ancient Olympics, and that they were "international"? That is plainly ridiculous and the same goes for the Zappas games.

It doesn't make any difference whatsoever. The fact that two athletes born in two independent nations compete in the same event makes the event international by default. You don't have to stand behind a flag and claim that you are representing a nation to make the event international. I have made this statement multiple times and you have chosen to ignore it point-blank. They weren't from differnt states. They were from different countries (and that's a fact). If Ionian Greeks competed from the Persian Empire and they were born in Persia then yes they would make the event international without question. It is not ridiculous. And these Games were called Olympics at the time and they were not called "Zappas Games" (and that's a fact). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not ignore that fact. I acknowledge that people came from different countries, but all of them were Greeks, so the prime factor here is not the internationality, but the Greekness of the participants. And again, when you say "If Ionian Greeks competed from the Persian Empire and they were born in Persia then yes they would make the event international without question." I can only raise my hands into the air. The ancient Olympics were "Panhellenic", "from all corners of the Greek world", and so were the Zappas Olympics in direct emulation. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are ignoring the facts. You say that Mindler is a Greek because he was born in Greece. But you also say that if Velissariou were born in Persia that he would not be a Persian. You are contradicting yourself. Velissariou was born in Izmir. It was part of the Ottoman Empire and it is part of Turkey today. It was only a part of Greece for a brief period during the 20th Century. Therefore neither Velissariou or his great grandparents had Greek citizenship. How could they? Greece did not exist before 1821. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

4) by "international Olympic Games" or even plain "Olympic Games", 99.999% of people understand a very specific set of athletic events, namely those from 1896 on, under the IOC. It is not WP's job to broadcast "the Truth" or engage in campaigning. It is here to tell people what happened, show what scholars think, and let them draw their own conclusions. The critical role of the Zappas Olympics is stated over and over in the article. If you wish to elaborate on that further, please do so, but with an in-depth analysis, not by adding bullet-point sentences of the type "they were international Olympics" or "they were the first modern Olympics". Right or wrong, they aren't regarded as forming part of the main Olympic series. Accept that in an encyclopedia, this overrides every "right" and any claim, just as the Byzantine Empire analogue I gave earlier. If you want to change perceptions, publish a book, start an internet campaign, but per WP rules, they cannot simply be labelled "Olympic Games" without a disambiguating qualifier. Please believe me that I want this article to be good, and that I want the importance of the games to be emphasized. However also please accept my advice as a more experienced editor and, in the nationality question, as someone who has spent over ten years reading Greek, Balkan & Ottoman history books in four different languages and with all kinds of POVs. Constantine ✍ 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are claiming that 99.999% of people see an "Olympic Games" that is detached from what was created in Ancient Greece as an "IOC" Olympic Games and that this modern Olympic Games has more right to be called "Olympic Games". You are ignoring history by claiming that the "Zappas Games" were not called "Olympic Games" and that they can just be called "athletic events". If Wikipedia is here to tell people what happened. Then tell them that athletes from several different countries attended these Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, and 1875 and quote Young. It doesn't make any difference what their ethnicity is. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are writing history based on perception and not fact. The IOC has been touting the perception that the modern Olympic Games would not have existed if it were not for the IOC. Well ofcourse they would. It is in their best interests to do that. You are prepared to tout their perception like a parrot and are not prepared to cite factual scholarly sources that say otherwise. Take the time to read Young's books. Here is your disambiguation qualifier: "the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas were called "Olympic Games" before the IOC got involved. In fact, the IOC adopted the stadium that was used for these Olympic Games to launch the IOC's version of the Games in 1896. That doesn't make the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas any less Olympic or any less international in any way. The fact is that 1896 Athens would not have happened without 1859, 1870, and 1875. It couldn't have happened without the stadium. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please, read what I have written before: what are the Olympics if not "athletic events"? "Olympic Games" is not some specific, self-contained athletic term like "football match", it is the name for a very specific series of athletic competitions. Saying that the "Zappas Olympics were Olympic Games" is nonsense both semeiologically and in terms of style and use of the language. Neither do I deny the fact that the Zappas games were called "Olympics". Its right there in the title, for heaven's sake. But the fact is, in historiography, they are mentioned as the "Zappas Olympics", even in Greek, to distinguish them from the IOC games. Yes, the IOC is filthy, yes, it has done its PR job exceedingly well, but we are not here to counter it with propaganda (no matter how well justified) of our own. We are bound to respect conventions of usage, just as with the Byz. Empire. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the nationality question. What nationality question? Are you denying that the participants of these Games were born in different countries? Even Crete was an independent country before and after the Ottoman Empire (and all the preceding empires). Claiming that these Games were national when the facts are that participating athletes were born in independent countries ignores the facts. History should be based on facts, not on "truth", "perceptions", or parrot-quoted pseudo-history. The athletes attended from many nations. The athletes were born in multiple countries. It makes no difference what their ethnicity, religion or sexual preferences were. International is international. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my answer above for that. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

They may not be part of the IOC series but they are part of the series of modern Olympic Games without question. They were Olympic Games without question. They preceded the IOC Games. Without them there would have been no 1896, nor 1906, nor would the Panathenian stadium been used in 2004 either. If you need to separate them then call the IOC Games "IOC Games" and these Games "Olympic Games" because these Games have more right to be called Olympic Games. These Games came first. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but here you let your personal bias get the better of you. Look, disputes of this kind are raging all over WP. For instance, there are Greek editors who try to push through the renaming of Republic of Macedonia-related pages to other forms, because "Only Greek Macedonia has the right to be called such", and conversely, others want to include in Greek Macedonia-related articles references to "occupied Macedonia, Aegean Macedonia, etc. Ultimately, we must respect common usage. It is not a question of right or wrong, it is a WP policy, period. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with personal bias or POV. The Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas were Olympic Games. There is no other way of describing them. They were the revival of the Olympic Games. Calling them athletic games short-changes what they were. They were called Olympics. They were Olympic Games. Denying that is denying fact. By calling them athletic games you are denying that fact. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were called Olympics. They were not called "Zappas Games". If Wikipedia or the IOC wants to call the Games from 1896 -> "Olympic Games" and the Olympic Games that happened before 1896 -> "athletic events" when the IOC Games is a direct descendent of the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas (supported by multiple scholarly references and mostly Young). That is brushing real factual history under the carpet and broadcasting false perceptions parrot-fashion. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to distinguish these Olympic Games from the IOC's then called them "The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas" and not "Zappas Olympics" and not "Zappas Games" because these names were not used in actual fact. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, see above for the term "Olympics".Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to my response to the above referenced response. I have already corrected the location of the first modern international Olympic Games that was not held in Omonoia Square. I have also corrected the fact that 1888 was not one of the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. But you are having difficulty recognising that these Games were Olympic Games and they were a direct blood-line relative of the IOC's Olympic Games. By that fact alone they cannot be called anything other than Olympic Games. You are also having difficulty recognising that these were international games despite the fact that you recognise that a Bavarian has Greek nationality because he was born in Greece but cannot recognise that a large bunch of Ottomans who were not born in Greece did not have Greek nationality. And ethnicity has no part to play in this. It makes no difference what their ethnicity was since it clearly makes no difference what Mindler's (Bavarian) ethnicity was. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am recognizing that the Games were called "Olympic Games". That is what the "Olympics" part in "Zappas Olympics" means. That is what "the first revival of the ancient Olympic Games in the modern era" also means. I am neither ignoring nor denying that fact anywhere in our discussion. However, you persistently ignore the things I mentioned about disambiguation and current usage. I'll repeat it for the last time: for better or worse, right or wrong, these games are not widely considered as part of the mainstream "Olympic Games", which are held to be the IOC games and to have begun in 1896. You may feel strongly about this, I respect that, but that is the way things are. When they change, the entry will change too. As for the nationality/ethnicity thing: if Mindler competed by virtue of his Greek citizenship, then that's that. He was a Greek, in the eyes of the law. The others, from the Ottoman Empire, participated not by virtue of their Ottoman citizenship, but as ethnic Greeks from the wider Greek world. That is a fact mentioned by all authors. There is no "either the one or the other"; things regarding nationalities, as I have in vain tried to explain, are more complicated than what passport one holds, cf from WP's own definition of nation: "Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state". Even then, you also said: "International does not mean "from many nations" more specifically it means "between nations". Between two nations is "international"", and these contests were most certainly not between nations or states, as no athlete represented any one nation, but simply themselves. Now, to make things simple and end this dispute which has gone on far too long, give me a few direct citations by reliable scholars that the Zappas Games were "international games", and I'll include that term. Otherwise let's end this here. Constantine ✍ 10:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable ethically and historically. And now you claim that I falsify history. In what way exactly have I made up history? You inserted the false name of the square that the Games was held at in 1859. You claimed that the 1888 event was a part of the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. You are accusing me of what you have been doing. All that is required for an international competition to be an international is for two competitors to turn up who are citizens of two countries. That is all. There do not have to be flags. There do not have to be processions. It does not need to be called an international. They do not have to say that they are competing for specific countries. Wimbledon is an international competition and although the competitors are listed with the countries they are from they are not competing for their countries. It is widely considered/perceived to be an international Grand Slam tournament. In the Davis Cup they do compete for their countries (and the Davis Cup has a much smaller audience). Moreover, the passport itself is unimportant. What is important is where you are born and what your citizenship is. A passport is one indicator but not the be-all-and-end-all. As for the way things are. As it stands you accept that ethnic Bavarian Mindler is Greek but you do not accept that Velissariou is a citizen of the Ottoman Empire and not of Greece who was not born in Greece (moreover part of the Ottoman Empire that is not Greek today nor for more than a few hundred years). In "the eyes of" which law specifically was Velissariou a Greek national? Did he receive naturalisation? Did he have a Greek passport? Did he marry a Greek woman in Athens and take on a new nationality? The way things are is that Zappas sponsored Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, and 1875. The stadium that he refurbished was used during the Olympic Games of 1896, 1906 and 2004. And yet you claim that this Olympic Games has no right to be called Olympic Games because the IOC's Olympic Games has more right because of "perceptions". I already have provided reliable and scholarly references with all the facts that show without any doubt that these were international games. Here are some more:

Sometimes I really wonder if you read what I am writing... I did not accuse you of "making up" history, just of saying false things alongside your good contributions. For instance, claiming that an ethnic Greek is not part of the Greek nation, or that the ancient games were international. Also, I did not add the 188 games, Alexis had added them in the original version of this article. I also never said that Velissariou was not a citizen of the Ottoman Empire, nor that Velissariou was Greek "in the eyes of the law". Seriously, stop twisting what I am writing. And I am again sorry, but "ethical" reasons are not the basis of inclusion in Wikipedia, as I have again and again tried to explain. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Society of Olympic Collectors, Torch Bearer, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2009, 'Postal History of the Brookes Family' by Mike Pagomenos, p97:

"Dr Brookes adopted events from the 1859 Athens Olympic Games programme in to future programmes of the Wenlock Olympian Games. The first man to be listed on the honorary roll of the Society was one of the first modern international Olympians from the 1859 Games. He was Petros Velissariou from Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire. Other Olympians had travelled from the Ottoman Empire to Greece to compete at the 1859 Games from Macedonia and Crete. Macedonia reunited with Greece in 1912, Crete became part of Greece in 1913 and was an independent country before that."

"Dr Brookes invited Baron Pierre de Coubertin to visit Much Wenlock in October 1890 [Ref 1. and 3] The Baron was inspired by him and the Wenlock Olympian Games and later integrated some of his ideas in to the format of future Olympics. Ideas from the 1859, 1870, and 1875 international Olympic Games in Athens were also incorporated by the Greek organising committee in 1896."

To put these quotations in to context. The article is a highly specialised article about the postal history of the Brookes family before during and after the Wenlock Olympian Games. The article displays items from a unique private collection of covers and entires. The author is an Olympic historian who has specialised on the early modern Olympic history that matters (1830s through to 1890s) for the last decade.

Right, this is a source, but a) not scholarly and b) more importantly, Pagomenos is the founder of Zappas.org, so his view can not be taken as indicative of current consensus. I have already told you that Zappas.org does not fall under WP:RS because of its blatant advocacy nature. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has no advocacy content. The author is a scholar. The article has original and unique historical content available nowhere else. Moreover it is factual. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more scholarly quotes:

A Brief History of the Modern Olympic Games by Prof Young (2004), Chapter 13 'The Origin and Authenticity of the Modern Olympic Games".

"Our modern games are, in fact, the brainchild of a Greek [referring to Zappas], and modern Greece had Olympic Games before Coubertin was even born." p140

Do I need to underline the words "Olympic" and "Games" in this quote which clearly states, by the leading scholar on the subject, that the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were "Olympic Games".

Again, neither I nor the article disputes that the games were called "Olympic Games" and were a direct emulation of the ancient ones. It is clearly mentioned and accepted. But there is nothing here on the international aspect of the games. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a small step in the right direction. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Our Olympic Games are not so much a revival of the anicent Greek games as a genuine continuation of them." p140 [this includes the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas]

"In 1842, Soutsos put his proposal in print and in public, pleading to his king: "Let the ancint Olympic Games be revived in Athens." p142 [pleading to that waste of space King Otto 1, but the point here is that the Olympic Games were revived in Athens]

"But this time Zappas said that he, Zappas, would pay for it all." p142

"The missing link between Soutsos and Coubertin ..." p144

And again, the vital role of the Zappas games in relaunching "Olympics" has been mentioned over and over. Again, and for the last time (I hope), neither I nor the article disputes that. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another small step in the right direction. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas re-established the Olympic Games (and not just any "athletic games") in modern times. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

More importantly:

"In the autumn of 1858 [one year before the 1859 Olympic Games] Dr Brookes was reading his local newspaper when a small item caught his eye. This brief article concerned the new Greek Olympics that were to take place in Athens in 1859."

I have original articles from 1858 and 1859 from the newspapers and magazines of the day. These Olympic Games were recorded, promoted, mentioned, press released all over the world. Not one of the press releases says that these Olympic Games were limited or restricted to ethnic Greeks. These press releases were an open opportunity for anyone to attend the Olympic Games in 1859. Open opportunity. Moreover Dr Brookes decided to sponsor Velissariou's event. Making the sponsorship international without question. Velissariou made the participation international without question.

Foreign sponsorship does not make something international. Participation may not have formally been restricted, but if de facto only people "from the Greek world" (i.e. the Greek state and the Greek diaspora) participated, and since the Games were meant as a direct emulation of the ancient Games (i.e. with the implicit proviso that only Greeks could participate) for the explicit benefit ("national re-awakening") of Greece, then that is important. The article provides citations by three (3) different scholarly sources to that effect. Again, if by "international" you simply mean "people from many countries came to participate", that is not mutually exclusive with this being a Greek affair, since these citizens were ethnic Greeks. Both of these facts are already stated. If one the other hand you mean, acc. to your earlier statement, "International does not mean "from many nations" more specifically it means "between nations"." than that is patently wrong, for there was no competition "between nations" here, only between individuals from the same nation but with different citizenships. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said that foreign sponsorship makes it international? In fact, the Ancient Olympic Games did not limit participation either. There's no competition "between" nations at Wimbledon but it is an international event. What's your problem with the use of the word international? If Panathinaikos plays Arsenal it is widely perceived to be an international event but these are not national teams. It is an international event without question. In fact, it's a national event if Arsenal plays itself because of all of the foreign players. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"This exchange of letters proves that there was back in 1860, a small beginning of an international Olympic movement, even if very brief and embryonic." p147 [referring to communications exchanged between Dr Brookes and N. Theocharis (head of the Greek Olympic Committee).

Now don't confuse this paragraph with "international Olympic Games". This is about an international Olympic movement. The international Olympic Games had already happened in 1859. Obviously, one was not enough for a movement but it was enough to initiate international Olympic communications that contributed to an international movement.

Yes indeed, that was my reading of it as well. The international Olympic movement began with two separate sets of games, those of Athens and Wenlock. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ok. But obviously, the legitimacy of the Wenlock Olympian Games only comes about because events were adopted from the Olympic Games that were sponsored by Zappas. Otherwise, it would have no provenance. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then ofcourse there was the national Olympic Games held at Crystal Palace in 1866. First proper Olympic Games to be held outside of Greece. Adding further momentum to the Olympic movement.

This is all progressive. It didn't just pop out in 1896. The whole concept that Baron Pierre de Coubertin stretched out his arm like God in Michelangelo's Cisteen chapel and created the Olympic Games is pure falsification of history. And you are wholeheartedly supporting that POV. The Olympic Games was a progression from Soutsos -> Zappas -> Brookes -> Coubertin ... without Soutsos we would never have heard of Zappas, Brookes would have done his own thing eventually but it would have been weird (with jousting and sack races, and tilting the ring (medieval Olympics), Coubertin adopted all of the ideas and then claimed point-blank that they were his. Just like you are claiming point-blank that the IOC's Olympic Games are the only Olympic Games that ever happened in modern times. Talk about falsifying history. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"The whole concept that Baron Pierre de Coubertin stretched out his arm like God in Michelangelo's Cisteen chapel and created the Olympic Games is pure falsification of history. And you are wholeheartedly supporting that POV.", "Just like you are claiming point-blank that the IOC's Olympic Games are the only Olympic Games that ever happened in modern times. Talk about falsifying history."

No I am not. The article already states the role of the games and of Zappas himself, it also includes the name "Olympics". I have explained the thing about the "Olympic Games" ad nauseum, I understand your point, I honestly sympathise, but current usage and the need for disambiguation go against you. The Zappas Olympics were clearly an evolutionary link, but not the same as the IOC Olympics, whether you like it or not. Participation was not "international" (as in "from and between many nations") until 1896, and, whether we like it or not, the current continuous series of games, i.e the "Olympic Games" that has survived, prospered and is best-known under that name, was begun by de Coubertin. To borrow from another user with whom you;ve had this same dispute, "The point everyone, including Young (as has been quoted to you before), is making is that Zappas was among those who "advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded"--as compared to the IOC". Please read again the relevant WP policies. This is not the place for campaigning, and a number of users have made this clear to you before me. Please respect that. Constantine ✍ 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were international from 1859. From day one. From the moment any athlete who was not from Greek soil (i.e. independent Greece as it was in 1859, 1870, and 1875) competed. In fact, not even the IOC's Olympic Games is truly between nations. The flag waving is ceremonial. The competitors are not there to be first in the medal tables. The vast majority of the competitors are there for themselves. And if it were truly an event that were between nations then the teams would all be the same size and there would be fair representation. So your "between nations" argument disqualifies the IOC's Olympic Games. Remember, that Wimbledon is an international event. The Australian Open is an international event. The U.S. Open (for any sport you choose to pick) is an international event. AEK v Glasgow is an international event. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were international by default. The fact that the sponsor wasn't born in Greece either, that one of the prize-givers was from the UK, and that the King of Greece's portrait, who was a Bavarian immigrant, was on the souvenir medals too only adds to the international nature of the event. Let's not forget Mr Mindler who was ethnically Bavarian too. I am not campaigning. History is not reported correctly and it must be corrected. Even the way that Prof Young has recorded the history of the Olympic Games has evolved. In fact, I personally have clearly influenced the way that he presents the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas in his 2004 book but without Prof Young nobody would have had the opportunity to get a full appreciation for how the Olympic Games were re-established in modern times. His publisher contacted me offering a complimentary copy which I only agreed to accept if they allowed me to pay for it. His early "never fully succeeded" POV that was adopted from other historians was wrong. Zappas got the first Olympic stadium up and running and it was used five times to host Olympic Games between 1870 and 2004. How is that failure? Zappas' stadium hosted the first IOC Olympic Games. The Zappeion hosted the first indoor Olympic event. The Zappeion was the first Olympic Village hosting the Hungarian team in 1906. How did Zappas fail? The only reason that he is believed to have failed is because Baron Pierre de Coubertin made sure that it was reported that way and everybody else, like parrots and sheep, tell the same failure story again and again. On the contrary, without Zappas the Olympic Games would not have been revived and re-established in the 19th Century. Without question and without doubt. The earliest the Baron could have done it if he was not inspired by Brookes who was also inspired by Zappas and by some miracle was inspired by himself would have been the 20th Century. Zappas didn't fail. Zappas succeeded. If Prof Young lives long enough he will say that in a future book. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This will be my final comment here, as we are going around in circles and getting nowhere. I don't care whether you were consulted or not. Do you know why? Because I cannot verify claims like that. Again, and for the last time, read WP's policies on sources, POV and WP:SOAPBOX. You claim that what other historians have written is wrong, you feel that history is misrepresented. You have also failed to provide a proper source to back up your claims. The article already includes a couple of very specific and explicit sentences that sum up the current view on the subject we've been endlessly debating: "Although they could be termed as the first Olympic Games of the present tradition, it was far from being an international festival. They had a distinctly national character, since the participants were exclusively of Greek ethnicity, coming both from inside the independent Greek state and the Greek diaspora." These quotes are backed up by sources, including Young. Both they, other users before me and I disagree with your POV and your interpretation of these events. That means that your position is not as clear-cut "without question and without doubt" as you want to believe. Obviously historiography and perceptions change, so if and when Prof Young changes his mind and publishes a new book, then we can have this discussion again. As it stands now, your major point, namely the significance of the Zappas Olympics to the rebirth of the modern Olympic movement, is well covered with several explicit references to that effect. On the other hand, your desire to explicitly christen these games as the "first modern international Olympics", equal in all aspects to the later IOC kind, is unfortunately not backed up by the sources. There were too many differences, and the events were too sporadic to be considered a regular and well-established series. If that interpretation paints me as one of the "sheep" or an IOC lackey, then so be it. That is however the only conclusion that can be drawn from the sources, and, following WP guidelines, that is the way it will stay until a new scholarly consensus has been reached. Regards, Constantine ✍ 10:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were the first modern international Olympic Games whether you like it or not. Denying history is not going to change that fact. Claiming protection with "consensus of opinion" is nothing less than denial by sheep. I suspect that you would also be prepared to deny that any genocide happened against Orthodox Christians in the early part of the 20th Century due to "concensus of opinion". Weak argument with lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject material. Definitely has failed to read around the subject. You get zero out of ten for the subject of "the early modern history of the Olympic Games". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God... Do you expect to be taken seriously with arguments like "I suspect that you would also be prepared to deny that any genocide happened against Orthodox Christians in the early part of the 20th Century due to "concensus of opinion"."? Grow up. Or better yet, let me answer that: no, I would not deny it, because the atrocities are well-documented, and scholars have written about it and described it in those exact words If it were some lone guy with an internet site claiming that all this was a genocide, it'd be different. Do you see the difference with your claims here? Constantine ✍ 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you are a hypocrite and that's not a POV. It's a fact. You dare to claim that there is concensus of opinion that the Olympic Games can only be called the Olympic Games from 1896. But the countries that have recognised the Genocide of Orthodox Christians between 1915 and 1923 are in the minority. What is the difference? Popular opinion says that there was no Genocide of Orthodox Christians. Although I agree with you. Only I would call it an Orthodox Christian Holocaust but ofcourse Wikipedia would say ... you can't call it a Holocaust because it only applies to the Jewish Holocaust. Blah blah blah. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

PS. As for the examples you put forth, the IOC Olympics have a very clear "between nations" (or better "between nation-states") character to them, or we've been living on different planets. Why are there medal tables per nation, why are there national anthems, why are there national Olympic committees, why do national teams buy off athletes from other countries, why do entire countries celebrate their achievements, if this is not about athletes representing their respective nations? And all these events you mention also happen to include a little flag next to the athlete's name, indicating their nationality. This was not the case in the Zappas games, which, if not in name, were in spirit and fact a pan-Greek event, and if Mindler participated, it was by virtue of his Greek citizenship, not because he represented Bavaria in any way. You are utterly ignoring the era and spirit in which the Zappas Games were conceived and eventually organized: they were meant to be a way for a revival of the Greek nation by hearkening back to ancient traditions, and that Greek nation back then included not only the citizens of the Greek kingdom, but also the wider "Hellenism" resident in the Ottoman Empire or southern Russia, which by virtue of this formed part of the "Greek world", even if not part of the "Greek state". Constantine ✍ 10:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot even stay on the point. The IOC Olympic Games is international but it is not "between nations". Today's usage of the word "international" doesn't even stay true to its own root meaning. If it were between nations the teams representing each nation would be the same size. As for athletes representing their own nations ... well there is no consistency there. Some do and some don't. And personally, who cares. The fact is that these arguments have no bearing on whether the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were international. The IOC Games is no more international than the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. It still uses the stadium refurbished by Zappas (last time around in 2004). It still uses the Zappeion paid for by Zappas (last time around in 2004). It still uses the concept of the Olympic Village first introduced at the Zappeion in 1906. The IOC Games would have been nothing without the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. Absolutely nothing. And Mindler still reduces all your arguments regarding "international" to nothing. For only one reason. You are prepared to call Mindler Greek but you are not prepared to call Velissariou Ottoman. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot even stay on the point...", that's rich, since you went on the effort to prove to me why the Olympic Games are not "between nations", even though most people would disagree (as well as the national committees of the Eastern Bloc, China, etc who went to enormous lengths to make their athletes win a medal for their country)... As for the use of the stadium and the Zappeion, what does it prove? The Greek government uses these buildings for a whole lot of other purposes, including as a media center. Should we call Zappas the "father of the media center" because of that? "You are prepared to call Mindler Greek but you are not prepared to call Velissariou Ottoman" again you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I make such a claim? Velissariou was clearly an ethnic Greek Ottoman citizen, just as Mindler was an ethnic Bavarian Greek citizen. Yet Velissariou did not compete by virtue of his Ottoman-ness, but by virtue of the fact that he was an ethnic Greek. As for Mindler, the reverse is true. What part of that can you not understand? You have failed to see that it is not a clear-cut and mutually exclusive "either or" argument here. And "all your arguments regarding "international"" also happen to be the arguments used by three different scholarly sources. So again, and this time I mean it: unless you document your claims with a reliable, neutral source, this discussion is over. Constantine ✍ 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the effort to prove that the IOC's Olympic Games is not "between nations" because it is not between nations. As I have already explained if these Games were between nations then the teams of each country would be the same size. The teams would compete across the same disciplines. The IOC's Olympic Games is therefore not "between nations". It "international" nature is only attained by the way that we use the word international and has nothing to do with the core meaning of the word international. It really makes no difference how much effort a country made to get their athletes to win a medal. It's a pointless exercise. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the stadium and the Zappeion proves a great deal. It proves first of all that they were fit for purpose when they were first built and are still fit for purpose today. They were fit for purpose during the first modern international Olympic Games to be hosted in a stadium. You can't detract from that. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You continually refer to Mindler as a Greek and to Velissariou as a Greek. They can't both be Greek nationals. Either Mindler is a Greek national or Velissariou is a Greek national. I don't mean by ethnicity. I mean by nationality. Don't confuse the fact that ethnicity and nationality are the same thing in the Greek language because in every other language ethnicity and nationality are two different things entirely. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already quoted veriable, scholarly, neutral sources that prove without any doubt whatsoever that these Olympic Games were international. I don't have to do any more. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No you have not. You have provided one source by the same guy who runs Zappas.org (and with whom I suspect you to have a direct relation). Everything else was either irrelevant to the issue at hand (namely the "international" and the question whether these games were the exact same thing as the IOC games) or at best tangentially related and open to interpretation. The article has three sources from different authors which state that in essence, it was an all-Greek affair, and that the IOC series was greatly inspired by them and both materially and conceptually indepbted to them, but not the same thing. I would advise you to respect other people's opinions, especially if they happen to be specialist scholars, and not dismiss them as "sheep" because they disagree with you. You may not like consensus reality as its stands re this issue, but it is not Wikipedia's role to take sides here. Wikipedia simply functions on a different set of principles (WP:RS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:VERIFY), and not on WP:TRUTH. The fact that you have had the very same arguments with other editors in the past should tell you that there is a problem with your claims and with how you back them up. Constantine ✍ 22:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You only see what you want to see. "As in antiquity, athletes from all over the Greek-speaking world, north to south, east to west -- from as far away as Turkey, Crete, Cyprus, and Albania -- came to compete in these Olympics." p21 Prof Young (1996). Note that he says "Greek-speaking world" and not "Greek world" which is much more accurate than "Greek world". Are you telling me that this is not a scholarly reference? Are you claiming that any of the countries listed were part of Greece in 1859, 1870 or 1875? It's not my fault if all the Wikipedia editors are selectively deaf, dumb and blind. Is this not "international" enough for you? But ofcourse you will think up some ludicrous reason why this scholarly quote is not good enough for you. It is a scholarly quote and it is based on facts. You will say that they were ethnically Greek but in the same breath claim that Mindler, who was ethnically Bavarian, was a Greek. You cannot have it both ways. Either Mindler was a Greek national and those that came from outside of Greece were not OR Mindler was ethnically Bavarian and those that came from outside of Greece were ethnically Greek. Which is it? Meanwhile you will claim that they were all Greek nationals, which they were not and you will try to back it up with a quote from an ignorant scholar who plagiarised another ignorant scholar. Do you have any appreciation of what "double standards" are? You cannot have it both ways. I have explained this perfectly clearly time and time again. Yet, you steamroll over it everytime. If Velissariou were born in Izmir today he would be a Turkish national with a Turkish passport and he would have had to serve in the Turkish Army and you would still claim that his primary nationality was Greek. His ethnicity may be Greek but his nationality is not. It makes no difference who he competes for. The fact is that he is an athlete from a different nation with a different nationality. Athletes from different nations and/or empires competed at these Games. It only takes two athletes who were born in two different countries to make an event international. They don't have to represent a nation and they don't have to carry a flag. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the upteenth time, can you please read what I am writing carefully and not repeat the same accusations, to which I have already given specific answers, over and over? The fact that people of different citizenships came to compete is acknowledged. Specifically, I'll repeat it, I have stated it clearly "Velissariou was clearly an ethnic Greek Ottoman citizen, just as Mindler was an ethnic Bavarian Greek citizen." See, I know that. But is it not important that Young emphasizes that these athletes came from the Greek communities abroad (i.e. they were Greek-peaking) and not from any other community? Does it not demonstrate clearly that in these games, only Greeks (in whatever sense, ethnic, cultural or naturalized) participated? We disagree on the definition of "international", not on who competed and what they were. The Zappas games would have been truly international if they had been opened up to all people, regardless of origin or language. As it is, it is clear that they were consciously intended to be a "Greek affair",in imitation of the ancient Olympics. In such an atmosphere, whether or not one came from Turkey or China was irrelevant, as long as one was part of the "Greek[-speaking] world". It is clear by inference that a sense of "Greek-ness", whether innate or acquired through naturalization, was the primary criterion here, and it is emphasized by all our sources, including Young. Look, I am tired of this discussion, which has gone on way too long and stopped being productive about an age ago. If you want, open an WP:RFC on the issue in the article's talk page and let other editors have their say. Constantine ✍ 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. By acknowledging that different citizenships competed you have acknowledged that the event was international. Young does not mention "communities". He only mentioned "Greek-speaking". There were many communities in the "Greek-speaking world" that spoke Greek that were not Greek. But to save arguments let's assume they were all ethnic Greek as well as Greek-speaking. Two different citizenships is all that is required to make the event international in any case. Who said that the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas were not opened up to all people? The tickets, the programmes, the organisers did not call the Games "national". Nor was knowledge of the event restricted to Greece. As you would say: "as long as the Bavarian speaks Greek or was born in Greece then he is a Greek but a Greek is always a Greek and it doesn't matter where he is born". I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are a hypocrite. That's a fact and not a personal attack or a POV. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mindler the Greek and the "Greek-speaking world"

[This para has been cut and paste from the previous section to separate the discussion on Mindler and the "Greek-speaking world".] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your usage of the phrase "Greek world" is past ludicrous. You claim that Velissariou was born in the "Greek world" and don't even water it down to "Greek-speaking world". If Velissariou was born in Izmir today would you still consider him to be part of the "Greek world"? From your arguments it appears that you would. Think about what you are saying and stop being a sheep. Ditto with the athletes from Constantinople. Smyrna was only a part of Greece for a very short period of time in the 20th Century. For hundreds of years it has not been part of the "Greek world". Remember, if Mindler is a Greek then Velissariou is not. I don't know why I have to repeat myself but clearly you aren't listening. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You have violated the three-revert rule on Mark Mindler. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)