Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Archive 5

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Constantine II of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constantine II of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Curley

A great number of citations go back to Curley´s book. And they all refer to the same three pages (39 to 41) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greece666 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Are all these categories necessary? Like “Greek autobiographers” or “21st century writers”? Seem unnecessary to me —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article clearly states that he published his autobiography. Which means the category is necessary. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page

This page has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the section "In the News." Interested editors are invited to discuss the nomination which can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

Please add the category Category:Burials at Tatoi Palace Royal Cemetery. 2601:249:9301:D570:B097:27B1:ED9E:BA48 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023 (2)

In the "Death" section. change Margaret II to Margarethe II. 3rdRealmQ (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Thank you for pointing out that mistake. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Historical period published article for cross references and review of your published bio:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/02/archives/monarchy-ended-as-greek-regime-sets-up-republic-king-is-assailed.html 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Descendants of the former King of Greece have no rights to Greek royal titles as the Greek monarchy abolished. Styles for former Greek royal families may use "pretender" as the former king had no authority, power or property to grant legitimate titles.
See historic property laws below Prince of Wales link:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/prince-of-Wales 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Please review also: "Nikolaos himself, by the way, appears to be much less attached to the idea of royalty and titles, than his supporters in the media (both traditional and social). In a radio interview Jon Faine (who introduced him as ‘Prince Nikolaos’, opting to avoid the HRH nonsense) for ABC Melbourne, he was well-spoken, graceful, diplomatic, and witty. Asked “What is the modern purpose of a royal family in Greece?”, he responded: “The modern purpose of a royal family in Greece doesn’t exist. There isn’t a purpose per se. My existence in Greece is purely out of my love for my country. I’m extremely grateful to be able to be there. Very often I wake up in the morning and pinch myself.” He then went on offering praise for the country and the people, particularly for showing solidarity to the wave of refugees.
At the end of the interview, Jon Faine referred to him as “Prince of Greece and Denmark,” immediately stopping to ask: “How can you be a prince of two countries at the same time?”
“I’m not really,” Nikolaos answered, explaining that all descendants of King Christian IX of Denmark retained the title (despite his own mother Anne-Marie having renounced her succession rights to the Danish throne for herself and her descendants in order to marry Constantine). “You don’t often see it other than our tombstones,” he added, much to everyone’s amusement. And that’s how he settled the issue of the appropriate use of royal titles, once and for all." 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The use of non existing titles today by relatives of the former Kings immediate family need better clarification in bios. According to Danish rights the use of Prince/Princess of Denmark and Greece are strictly "pretender" titles as those rights ended when the former King married and when Greece ceased to be a monarchy. To prevent historical inaccuracies or public confusion proper use of titles must and should be used at all times. 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
https://neoskosmos.com/en/2018/06/08/dialogue/opinion/the-modern-purpose-of-a-royal-family-in-greece-doesnt-exist/ 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Link to article showing correct descriptive style to use when not needing to use "former Prince" or "Princess pretender" in articles.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a3607/king-without-a-country/ 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not done with citations, sources and reason(s). Patients please. 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
"Constantine freely traveled in and out of Greece on a Danish passport, as Constantino de Grecia (Spanish for 'Constantine of Greece')"
Why would the King have Constantino de Grecia" on his Danish passport and makes no sense and needs revision:
"To keep Constantine and his family out of Greece, in the early 1980s the government sent an order to all consulates to deny any requests by members of the former royal family to have their passports renewed, effectively rendering them stateless persons. For a time they traveled on passports issued by the Spanish government, which listed the king's name as "Constantino de Grecia." Now he and his wife travel with Danish passports, which identify them as "H.M. King Constantine" and "H.M. Queen Anne-Marie." 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Careful when using "Crown Prince / Crown Princess as they are to be styled and noted as "pretender":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a3607/king-without-a-country/ 2603:7000:4C3F:CCB3:E477:7DA0:DEA:EFF4 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to reactivate your request, you needed to change the "answered" parameter to "no." 2601:249:9301:D570:B097:27B1:ED9E:BA48 (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Greek Royalty

The current page tells us that "When King Constantine's grandfather George II died, his father King Paul came to the throne" or words to that effect. However, King George II was the elder brother of King Paul, not his father. King Constantine I was the father of King George II, King Alexander and King Paul. If your encyclopaedia is to be a useful work of reference, you should really get this corrected. It looks like the work of an uneducated outsider. It is like stating that all US Presidents are the children of the preceeding President. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the institution, as if it does not really matter. But historical verity does matter when you are a resource for historians. You cannot just state an untruth as if it were a fact. George II was NOT Constantine II's grandfather, but his uncle. The Greek naming tradition whereby an eldest son takes the Christian name of his paternal grandfather gives us a bit of a clue here too. King Paul's father was King Constantine I, so his eldest son and heir was Constantine II, much as his own eldest son is Paul, and his eldest grandson Constantine. 213.205.192.251 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out, but just remember, Wikipedia is not always perfect and there will always be mistakes that are there to be ammended. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Before a mistake, accusing the errant of being an "uneducated outsider" and having such an unempathetic attitude is not welcome on Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New image — VOTE

  • Option 1: Constantine II in 1966
    Option 1: Constantine II in 1966
  • Option 2: Constantine II in 1966
    Option 2: Constantine II in 1966
  • Option 3: Constantine II in 1987 (official portrait)
    Option 3: Constantine II in 1987 (official portrait)

I've known of this article for nearly three years, and I always found it strange that there current 1987 portrait was being used when he reigned in the 60s. I always figured that there was no contemporary free equivalent, however, I've just found several in his categories. In the wake of his death, I think we should alter his photo. These are my two suggestions, however, you can look through his category on Wikimedia Commons and suggest any other ones if you want. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have moved all three images above on display as options, so we can have a vote. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 3: I have always thought that the potrait taken by Allan Warren in 1987 that I have included below this discussion is more appropriate. This is because it is a clearer image, it is a coloured image (making the subject more easily identifiable) and it is one of the most famous images of him, especially since it has been used in the article for years. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I think it's more convenient to have as a pic in the infobox an image of him during his reign, but neither of the two that have been proposed I see them suitable (by the fact of having people around him and being less "portrait"). And there aren't many more of him. In any case, of the three proposals I prefer option 2. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: A portrait from during his reign is preferable but not at the expense of quality. Option 3 isn't far off from his deposition and is clearly the best one. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 If the main image before were a candid pic, then a black and white pic would be best, however seeing how option 3 is an official portrait or at least looks like one, I'd go for this one. --2601:249:8E00:420:56E:4C22:CA52:5067 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 He is known for being King of Greece, but mainly for being the last king of Greece. Makes sense to have a picture of him after his reign. Besides, it's a high-quality photo, better than the other two. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I know I am writing this a little late, but I have gone ahead and changed the photo due to a 1:1:4 result. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Titular King of the Hellenes

May we please not put into the succession boxes, the title bit of Titular King of the Hellenes. I've noticed it's been added twice & worst, with his son Paul being shown as his successor. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Well done and thanks for bearing with me, Alsoriano97 and Therealscorp1an--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine II of Greece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Part one

Hi Alsoriano97, this is broadly a good quality detailed article but their are frequent problems with awkward or confusing wording. I have suggested some changes below which cover the first part of the article down to the end of the "Reign" section. I will make suggestions for the rest of the article once these issues are dealt with. Please use the  Done template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been dealt with and add any comments/questions after the points. For an example of a review with a similar structure, see Talk:Murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes/GA1.--Llewee (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Early years & Crown prince

  • "Constantine's birth took place during the beginning of World War II." - This is awkward wording, change "beginning" to "first year" or "early stages". Done
  • "As King George VI of the United Kingdom opposed the presence of Princess Frederika and her children in Britain," - was their any reason for this? If so give a brief explanation. Done
  • "while the rest of the family could seek refuge in then-Union of South Africa." - add "the" before "then-Union" Done
  • "Supervised by an army of British governesses and tutors," - overly flowery wording, change "an army of" to "various" Done
  • "Constantine continued to be educated with his sisters and other companions from Athens' better bourgeoisie in the villa at Psychiko." - Change "better bourgeoisie" to something clearer such as "wealthier population" or "upper classes". Done
  • "He attended school there as a boarder in the 1950s," include specific years Done

Reign

  • "However, as the king's condition worsened, the crown prince went to Tinos to get an icon considered miraculous by the Greek Orthodox Church. However, on 6 March 1964, Paul died and the 23-year-old Constantine succeeded him as King of the Hellenes." - Take out both instances of "however" here. Neither are necessary and the second doesn't make sense. Done
  • "It was hoped[by whom?] that the new young king and the new prime minister would be able to overcome past dissensions." - This needs to be clarified Done
  • "Constantine requested that those implicated in the ASPIDA scandal, in which several officers, captains and majors tried to thwart and pre-empt attempts by the extreme right-wing military to seize power, being referred to a military tribunal." - This text is confusing, a clearer version might be "Constantine requested that those implicated in the ASPIDA scandal, in which several military officials tried to prevent attempts by the extreme right-wing military to seize power, be referred to a military tribunal." Done
  • "and was formed by defectors disaffected with the Papandreous (the 'Apostates')" - change "and" to "which" Done
  • "His assassination became a symbol of the protests and his funeral was large-scaled." - "assassination" is an odd word to use in this context change to "death" or "killing", also change "large-scaled" to "widely attended" Done
  • "However, he finally ordered Ilias Tsirimokos to form a government on 18 August but he did not receive the vote of confidence of the parliament on a vote on 28 August either." "however" is superfluous here, also take out finally as this isn't last person asked to form a government Done
  • "Historians have had suspicions of Constantine and his mother's interest in a coup d'état since at least mid-1965." - a clearer way to word this would be "Historians have suspected that Constantine and his mother were interested in a coup d'état from at the latest mid-1965." Done
  • "the group was aware that any operation in this direction with the US must have the permission of the king." - put "cooperation of" before "US" Done
  • "The coup leaders met Constantine at his residence in Tatoi at about 7 a.m, which was surrounded by tanks to prevent resistance and when the coup seemed to have succeeded bloodless." - take out "when" and change "bloodless" to "bloodlessly" Done
  • "was generally reviled among the public for his shadowy role in the palace intrigues of the previous years." - take out "shadowy" Done
  • "The king and his entourage were beginning to glimpse the fall of the monarchy." - change this to something more literal e.g "were beginning to worry that the future of the monarchy was endangered" Done
  • "The king communicated with Konstantinos Karamanlis, exiled in Paris and aware of the plot, so that he would return to assume the post of prime minister if this movement was successful, but he refused." - change "so that he would" to "and attempted to persuade him" Done
  • "It would follow the tanking of Tempe and the defence of Lamia by the army in Larissa" - clarify Done (modified content)
  • "They attempted a first movement for the military parade scheduled for 28 October, " - "They intended to initiate their plan on the day of a military parade scheduled for 28 October," Done
  • "On the morning of 13 December 1967," - presumably this was the day the countercoup was rescheduled to which needs to be explicitly stated Done
  • "failed the countercoup" - make this clearer (e.g led to the countercoup's failure) Done
  • ", then and on the same day," - take out "then and" Done
  • "who was sworn in in Athens by Ieronymos." - only one "in" is needed (Rearranged sentencing as technically two are needed for "sworn in" and "in Athens"
  • "Constantine, the royal family and Prime Minister Konstantinos Kollias took off in torrential rain from Kavala for exile in Rome, where they arrived at 4 pm on 14 December and remained in exile there through the rest of military rule, although he technically continued as king until 1 June 1973." split into separate sentence from "remained in exile" (i.e. "He remained in exile...")  Done
  • "the conversion to a presidential and parliamentary democracy and assumed the interim presidency of the Republic." - split this section into its own sentence and clarify (e.g "He converted the country into a..."), also, change the word "democracy" for "republic" or "state" as it wasn't a democracy at that point Done

Part two

Hi Alsoriano97 and Therealscorp1an, thank you for dealing with the issues I pointed out in the previous section. Here is a series of points covering the second half of the article--Llewee (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of democracy and the referendum

  • "The Turkish invasion of Cyprus had also led to the downfall of the military regime," take out "had also"  Done
  • "Constantine confidently awaited an invitation to return." change "confidently awaited" to "expected"  Done
  • "Following the accession of a civilian government in November 1974" change "accession" to "appointment"  Done
  • "Karamanlis made no attempt to restore the democratic constitution of 1952." a clearer way to word this would be "Karamanlis made no attempt to encourage a vote in favour of restoring the monarch."  Done
  • "undermine any chance to restore the monarchy" a clearer way to word this would be "reduce the possibility of a vote in favour of restoration"  Done
  • "Constantine, speaking from London, freely admitted his past mistakes." change "freely admitted his past mistakes." to "said he had made mistakes in the past."  Done
  • "He claimed to have sound democratic intentions in the future" change to "He said he would always be supportive of democracy in future"  Done

Life in exile after 1974

  • "He did not return until February 1981," change to "He returned briefly for the first time in February 1981," Done
  • "His gesture of kissing the ground upon arrival in Greece provoked the government's reaction to limit only a few hours in the country." Done
    • change "provoked the government's reaction to limit only a few hours in the country." to "led to the government only allowing him to remain in the for a few hours" Done
    • clarify why this was I have said that it "provoked" the government, but it needs expanding as to why.  Done
  • "extending to the assassination of Karamanlis and followed by a referendum on the monarchy." change "extending to" to "including" or "beginning with" Done
  • "According to Vasileiadis, Arnaoutis insisted that Constantine had contacted the Shah of Iran in order to rein in a possible Turkish military action during the coup." change "insisted" to "said" and "rein in" to "prevent" Done
  • "As late as October 1976, the Greek prime minister was informed by the British ambassador that Constantine, while not the driving force behind the conspiracy, was very much aware of it and did nothing to discourage it." is their a reason why "As late as" is included here? Done No reason, I have just removed it.
  • "Nevertheless, as late as October 1978, Constantine and Arnaoutis were recorded by Greek agents to have sought contacts with military and political leaders, trying to win them over to the cause of a royal restoration." again "as late as" doesn't seem necessary here, also change "contacts" to "contact" Done
  • "Two years later, Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou abrogated that agreement and denied the properties received from Constantine, who cancelled the Greek citizenship of both himself and the royal family." change "denied" to "refused to return" and "received" Done

Later life

  • "According to a nationwide 2007 survey of 2,040 households conducted on behalf of the newspaper To Vima," make clear that this is in Greece Done
  • "His death was leaked by Associated Press, but then announced by his private office." This bit needs to be sourced. Done

Discussion

Nominator comment Much appreciated, Llewee. I'll work on it these days. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Therealscorp1an We have homework! If you want and you can collaborate, welcome. Also during these days I will start to correct it. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Yep, we sure do! Alsoriano97, would you like to split it in half? I do up to the "However, he finally ordered Ilias Tsirimokos to form a government on 18 August but he did not receive the vote of confidence of the parliament on a vote on 28 August either" point and you do the rest down? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I have done the first half, I may as well leave do the rest. The ones that I leave out I haven't been able to obtain any information on them. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Done. I have also bolded ones that still need to be completed (I can't find information on them). - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
that's so great! Thanks for your excellent work. I'll try to fix the remaining issues. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

2nd Nominator comment @Llewee: Everything corrected. About the opposition of King George of the United Kingdom to the presence in his country of Princess Frederica, I have not found any source that explains exactly the reasons, but she did have Nazi sympathies so it can be understood that this was the reason. If you think it isn't enough, I think the right thing to do would be to remove that content. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Alsoriano97:, can you find any sources about her having Nazi sympathies?--Llewee (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, change "George VI of the United Kingdom opposed the presence of Princess Frederika and her children in Britain for her supposed Nazi sympathies," to "George VI of the United Kingdom opposed the presence of Princess Frederika who was suspected of having Nazi sympathies and her children in Britain," as we don't have the sources to prove a direct link.--Llewee (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Llewee and Therealscorp1an!! _-_Alsor (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97: Stop! I had just finished making all of the edits, haha, I was just about to publish them. Do you want to continue or want me to do it? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just made the rest of the changes. @Alsoriano97: There is just one that I've left, mind if you do it? I'm not really sure how to fix it. 👍 - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Therealscorp1an stopped! Thanks again for the work you do. I was just looking for information on that. The anti-royalists saw the gesture as a provocation, but so far I haven't found information about the Greek government's opinion. I think it could be justified on the grounds that, faced with a funeral that already raised a lot of controversy, the gesture was going to muddle the issue even more. I don't know... _-_Alsor (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem like a bit of an "iffy" topic. Sorry if me "Stop!" command seemed a bit rude before, I didn't mean for it to... - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Therealscorp1an @Llewee It didn't sound rude at all, don't worry! I've changed the content a bit, let's see if it's clear now. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd nominator comment @Alsoriano97 and Llewee: How do you guys feel about the ancestry box being deleted from the page? I ask this as a lot of articles are having them removed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it has ever been surplus to requirements. It gives a better idea of the ancestry not only of the monarch/member of the royal house, but of the royal house itself in particular. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware that their have been discussions about whether they should be included on other pages. Though I don't know much about what the arguments for or against. I can understand that it's not hugely necessary but imagine some readers might find it useful given the importance of ancestry in these people's lives--Llewee (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

4th comment hello Llewee, what's the next step? Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alsoriano97 Sorry, I haven't been editing much over the last few days because I had a deadline for today. I'm going out tonight but should be able to do final checks on the article tomorrow.--Llewee (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No worries. There is no rush. Only when you can. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. The automatic copyright checker had serious concerns about this page https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Person/en/KingConstantineII.html and some concerns about this one https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1995/7/king-without-a-country
I think that most of the overlap in the second link is quotes and official names for things as others have said the first link is probably largely a copy.--Llewee (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. As this is my first time dealing plagiarism in a Good article review I will ask for a second opinion from a more experienced editor --Llewee (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@Llewee: I was unaware of the copyright... Is it possible, in the case of "Hellenica World", that this Wikipedia article was copied into that website? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@Llewee: It seems quite likely that most/all of Hellenica World was taken from Wikipedia, as it attributes the content to Wikipedia, and contains copies of Wikimarkup. The Vanity Fair article is not based on Wikipedia, but almost all of the parallels seem to be from a large, but properly formatted, quote, and some incidental and unavoidable phrases. From just these I see no CopyVio concerns, but ensure you are utilizing spot checks nevertheless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-war over infobox and lead

@DrKay: Hello. I have brought you here to ask that you explain your constant reverting of my changes, being that of the Regent of the Hellenes and the final section of the lead regarding his death. You have failed to explained multiple times in your various edit summaries and just simply give the reason that edits should be in English, which they all have been of course. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No-one says "Regent of the Hellenes". This is a weird anachronism. 4 ghits: 3 from over one hundred years ago and one about Alexander the Great, compared to over 60,000 ghits for the usual term used by native speakers.
The final sentence was unidiomatic and badly written. DrKay (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I just assumed "Regent of the Hellenes" was the official given title, considering the monarchial title is "King of the Hellenes" (which by the way is still English), but it seems I was wrong, so thank you for pointing that out. However, this is not a reason to remove this point in the infobox entirely. You have also claimed that the final sentence was "unidiomatic and badly written". I am not sure what "badly written" is referring to, but I disagree with unidiomatic (i.e. unnatural to regular speakers). I am presuming this is regarding the word "prolonged", however I would say that this word is more formal writing, in an encyclopedic tone and less colloquial as compared to "following a few years of". The semi-colon used in the sentence is also preferably avoidable, and makes the sentence unnecessarily long. According to Grammarly, a semi-colon is most commonly used to "join two independent clauses", which it does do in this case. However, these two events that are being connected occurred almost ten years apart and are better off as separate sentences. For this, I will be changing the article back to its previous revision with of course the change from "of the Hellenes" to "of Greece". - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Without a response from you or any counter-explanation to my statement above, I see you have added the "[needs copy edit] and [improper synthesis?]" tags. I have explained the "unidiomatic" part and the word "prolonged" is simply more formal. The second tag leads to Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material, which states that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In this case, simply changing "due" to "following" will fix this. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
"Without any response": You do know that I haven't edited wikipedia since 20:41, 23 January 2023? DrKay (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
"You do know that I haven't edited wikipedia since 20:41, 23 January 2023?": You edited and restored your old revision after I sent my second response and you didn't even respond, so I sent a third response. Also, I am finding myself to be continuously explaining stuff to you, but getting ignored every time. It seems that you pick at different points and only respond to some. You have also left this message on my talk page, even though you have been involved in the edit war as much I have. Whenever I revert, I list my reasons in this discussion, but your latest edit summary just says that it was "better before"? What does this even mean? I will keep the current revision for now and be mature about the situation, but if you do not counterpoint everything that I have fairly explained above, I will change it back. This is becoming tedious for me now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
You actually quote my responses above: "copy edit inline|reason=final clause is unidiomatic; see also WP:SUFFER" and "synthesis inline|reason=article body does not state that the stroke was caused by a prolonged illness". You have ignored them. Instead you have focussed on a straw man of the word "prolonged", which no-one has complained about and was never an issue. I am not required to respond to non-issues that do not concern me. If you continue to edit-war to your preferred new version without first gaining consensus, you are likely to be blocked. DrKay (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I did respond to both of them. The copy editing was referring to the unidiomatic part of your argument, which I had already countered above. WP:SUFFER has nothing to do with this either. "Following prolonged illness" does not paint him as a victim or use fancy medical language (which WP:SUFFER aims to avoid). This is also a very neutral point of view, considering that almost every source on the internet refers to it as well. And if "prolonged" is not the issue you are referring too, what is? You actually haven't really specified. And if you are claiming that I didn't respond to the second tag about the illnesses causing the stroke, I also responded to that above too. So it seems that maybe you are not responding or reading. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the infobox should say King of Greece, to match the intro, both here & at the bios of George I, Constantine I, Alexander, George II & Paul. That would remove the rather odd appearance of 'King of the Hellenes' & 'Regent of Greece', in the same infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Or possibly all the leads need changing since "Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων" (King of the Hellenes) was their official title, similar to "King of the Belgians". - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be "King of Greece" in the lead. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should be written in plain English. We don't use official titles in the leads of British royalty. We use descriptive terms that encapsulate the office. I see no reason why we should not do the same here. DrKay (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason why it can't remain "King of Greece" in the lead, but I think the infobox should stay as "King of the Hellenes" since that's their official title. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_II_of_Greece/Archive_5&oldid=1215443462"