Talk:Greece/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Greece v. Ancient Greece

Please post the sources here or indicate where in the article these multiple sources can be found. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what makes you believe that Athens was the cradle of the ancient Olympic games [[1]]. I can name a place in Greece but that wasn't Athens.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I read it in Nero's biography, I may remember incorrectly. I can double check but that isn't my question - The Question is Ancient Greece. All serious sources I've read about this (not travel guides) distinguish Ancient Greece from Modern Greece, because the City-States were not even friendly with one another, much less unified. I read about it when I created Temple of Poseidon (Tainaron) Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but politics have little to do with influences and contributions. Be some ancient city states at war, or a modern country united at peace, little matters when it comes to its influences and contributions to the history of the world. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you two in the right article? The Ancient Olympic Games have their own article. The location of the games was Olympia, Greece. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure myself. This is wrong on so may levels. I can't reply now, since the instigator of this retaliatory edit-warring is already, and rightfully, blocked. If I reply to a blocked editor, it will look like WP:GRAVEDANCING. Obviously, I won't do that. What can I say? It's a real conundrum. On the other hand, this editor is so pre-programmed to edit-war, that s/he edit-warred at 3RRN against a veteran and respected admin, whom s/he dissed at his/her own talkpage while blocked. Man, that's really something, and, like Obama said, above my paygrade. Dr. K. 01:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing this to Ancient Greece should not even seriously be in dispute but since it is being disputed here are sources:[2] [3] [4] You should also appreciate that the geographical area being discussed in the Classical world is significantly different from the geographical area of modern Greece. While this is one of the stupider disputes I have had in my time editing Wikipedia, I hope it is fairly obvious that this part of the lead needs to be changed. Furthermore the influence of Greek the literary language is not limited to modern Greece, it is not even limited to the territory of Ancient Greece/Greco-Roman world, it is widespread and the literary influence on Western tradition is linguistic, not based only on things that happened in the territory of the country that is now modern Greece [5] Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Right now the only thing sourced is literature, and that source says that Athens is the birthplace of Western Literature. Strickland is fine, but she is an art historian (not an expert on Homer) and the particular source cited is too basic and her analysis seems to be based entirely on a quote from Percy Bysshe Shelley. Yes, Attic is important, but we don't really know who Homer was or where he was from [6][7] and if you look at more detailed sources Homeric Greek is considerably more complex [8] [9] - so while the source does say Athens, it means Athens because of the Attic language, it does not mean "Greece the modern country" - this point isn't trivial. Additionally, the Nagy source argues that Attic is a dialect of Ionic. Croally (Routledge) does not list Attic as an element of Homeric Greek at all, and says Homeric Greek influenced Attic. Either way, debate about the linguistic relationship between Ionic and Attic in relation to Homer is beyond the scope of this article. It is enough to change this to Ancient Greece. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Homer? Homeric Greek? This is inane. Please stop. Khirurg (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The source that was just posted [10] also uses the term Ancient Greece ("originated in ancient Greece") - what is the objection to changing Greece to Ancient Greece? That would save the trouble of complex revision, which frankly is not warranted by a single cherry picked footnote that omits the word Ancient. I'm not sure what editors are disputing here or why. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There is also the issue of linking readers to Ancient Greece so they can read more about that - the fact that scholars use Greece and Ancient Greece interchangeably is sort of a moot point. Usually it is clear from context that they are talking about Ancient Greece. In this case the article is about the modern country, and we are supposed to use wikilinks. It is not necessary in every section - for example, in the section about Ancient Greece it does not need to be repeated again and again because it is obvious from context. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from such disruptive actions again such as blanking of sources like how you have done now at: [11]. About Greece/Ancient Greece, I have yet to see your whole point here, besides your usual WP:OR theories. The sources available on the web and the page do not even support your claims that only this or that term should be used. I am sorry but selective blanking and removal of sources goes against Wikipedia's rules, no matter how hard you try to justify your actions. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, one issue is that we are citing not only cradle of civilization but everything that comes after it. So cradle of civilization may be cited, though it is used in quotation marks, but literature and the others are not. In the first source, Duchesne, the footnote is actually for a statement about consensual government and is discussing Ancient Greece. The issue is that this is the page for the modern country that is called Greece, but the concept of "Greece" in the Ancient World is more complex then this, and the identity of Greek during that period is more complex. It includes Jews, and many other people who today would not be considered Greek, and this is basically obscured by the way the paragraph is written. Duchesne actually discusses this in some detail. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, enough. This article is about Greece and her contributions to the world both in the ancient times (western world), the medieval times (orthodox world), and the modern times, you aren't serious about cutting that fact just because you want to. Everyone is welcomed to believe or say whatever. But the facts remain facts and I am afraid you can't change that. Get over with it and use your time more positively to make more useful and constructive edits in Wikipedia, not stirring up debates that do not exist except in your mind. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 07:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the modern country of Greece. The contributions of Ancient Greece were made by people from Syria, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Persia, etc. This is all discussed in the source that is already cited. It is not an argument over semantics. It is not necessary to discuss it at great length but that history belongs to many different modern countries. Thus in this article, about the modern state of Greece, Ancient Greece should be linked to so readers can find out more about it at the correct article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The cited source says "the core values of Western culture...originated in ancient Greece during the polis period" - this is different from the literary tradition - Homer? Paul? Lucian? Have you read Lucian? Rostovzeff is quoted in the cited source: "Greek civilization became world-wide as the result of fresh and prolonged contact with the Eastern cultures after the conquest of the East by Alexander the Great" As for the other two sources, William J. Broad is a science journalist. Bottici is a great, but too complicated for the lede. It makes a complex argument that the entirety of our understanding of Greece as the Cradle of Western civiliation is an Enlightenment era myth - but that is too complex for the lede, and most likely a minority position. The fact that she uses "cradle of western civilization" sardonically is not really persuasive. The lede should be kept simple, I don't see any good reason not to change it and leave the rest of the sentence intact, because the point about Ancient Greece is widely accepted. The inability to distinguish between Ancient Greece and a modern state is a POV that is not at all supported by academic consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All of your objections are based on spurious reasoning, or caviling, Seraphim. I won't point them out in detail, but you reverted strong sources for what is, in any case, a cliché: it has been customary for centuries to speak of Greece (not ancient Greece) as the cradle of Western Civilisation. One can split hairs over ancient or modern, or point out the fact that Greece was a creative entrepot which crystallised a huge number of elements extraneous to that territory, but that doesn't alter the fact that the distinctive crystallization took place there. You equivocate re Homer (Ionic) not Athens, but the text as we know it of Homer was the result of a recension undertaken in Athens, by Peisistratos, etc.etc. Ancient Greece/Greece in the phrase is textual for language and institutions, not geographic. You persisted in reverting despite multiple editors saying, quite rightly, that you were wrong. In these cases, if you have a consensus against your edit, you shouldn't alter the page. You are obliged to address the talk page to convince people the received consensus is flawed.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not caviling, and it is not splitting hairs - Ancient Greece and modern Greece are not the same thing, just like the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are not the same, and Ancient Israel and Israel are not the same. I have said the same thing about both of those countries too, they are modern States, not ancient collectives of Spirit, so I'm not sure why it should be different here. In English language, context is important. Yes, we use the term Greece when it is obvious from context what we mean, and this is pretty elementary - if it is not obvious from context, then what we are saying is misrepresenting the sources. You are right that Ancient Greece is not only geographical, but this article is about a geographic territory that is a state -not an abstract cultural concept or a literary language. That is why we should use correct English. If this doesn't make sense to you, I am done talking about it. It is also simply rude to the editors who wrote Ancient Greece which is a pretty decent article to not link Ancient Greece in the lead when discussing Ancient Greece. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The word 'Greece' is used to cover ancient and modern times in a way that is unambiguous, unlike the cases of Anatolia/Asia Minor/Ottoman Empire/Turkey, or Israel(ethnonym)/Canaan/Philistia/Palaistinê/Holy Land/Israel-Cisjordan/West Bank. One introduces the kind of specification you think necessary only when ambiguity obtains, which is not the case here.

A moment's thought should have told you that while:

Troy was a city in Turkey/Alexander the Great invaded Turkey/the Romans invaded Turkey/the Byzantines ruled Turkey/ and
Joshua invaded Israel/Ramesses II conquered Israel/the Sea Peoples invaded Israel/the Assyrians invaded Israel/the Rashidun Caliphate invaded Israel/

are patently question-begging, dumb sentences. The following:-

The Dorians invaded Greece/Darius invaded Greece/Rome transformed Greece into a protectorate/the Ottoman Empire annexed Greece/etc.

are completely acceptable in historical writing.

What we are deaing with its a standard piece of rhetoric about Greece current for at least a century in all European languages,le berceau de la civilisation occidentale, la culla della civiltà occidentale, die Wiege der europäischen Zivilisation,etc. That is what impeccable sources state, and whatever one may think of the cliché (I dislike it personally), one is obliged to go by source frequency.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The summary of the discussion is that no one is disputing that the terms Ancient Greece and Greece are both in use, and that the meaning of Greece is fluid and encompasses different concepts. I posted some sources that will give a fuller picture of this but they aren't really necessary, as no one is actually disputing that the term Ancient Greece is also in use. You could argue that it is obvious from context that this sentence refers to Ancient Greece, and I might agree with you. But the policy based reason to prefer Ancient Greece here on Wikipedia is to Wikilink it, because it provides additional periodization information. Currently we link to general articles about the modern Olympic Games, Drama, Histiography, Political Theory that provide absolutely no background information on the subject of this article, but there is consensus not to link to Ancient Greece. Not really how Wikipedia articles should be written. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No reader is going to take 'Greece is the cradle of Western Civilisation' as referring to modern Greece. Were they to do so, they would be suffering from some cognitive disordure.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your last two comments, since Western literature doesn't really include the New Testament per se (this obviously crystalized elsewhere) - personally I don't see any harm in at least piping the link but I am not going to do it. If anyone else wants to I would support it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I can see what you are driving at, and I'm glad you came back to challenge my first remarks because they were not sufficiently expressive of what I was objecting to. In all these vexed issues, one sure guide is Sprachgefühl, testing our concepts against what usage actually tells us intuitively. As to the NT, well, like the OT (See Eric Auerbach,Mimesis ch.1 for a dubious but fascinating contrast) is part and parcel of Western civilization, where 'west' is not wholly geographic. The King James Bible and Luther's rendering inflected profoundly post-Reformation prose. Europa, like Cadmos the founder of Thebes, hailed from Phoenicia, and the NT, though it grates on Attic eyes, is written in Greek. Plato may, in turn, have had a germinal impact on the rise of rabbinical thought. Labels never do justice to the intricacies of history.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092911/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/greece.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/greece.htm

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) 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Because many sources from this page about Greece are not trustworthy and many things are not true i demand that editing this page must be accessible and to others. George Kokkinidis-GR (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC) George Kokkinidis-GR (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

I would like to have the right to edit this page. George Kokkinidis-GR (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Has polis where poleis should be

The third paragraph contains the following sentence:

From the eighth century BC, the Greeks were organised into various independent city-states, known as polis, which spanned ...

Because polis is the singular form of the noun, but the usage here is plural (in apposition to "city-states"), this sentence should be changed to read:

From the eighth century BC, the Greeks were organised into various independent city-states, known as poleis (singular polis), which spanned ...

This may seem trivial, but to have such a glaring error in the language of the subject of the article—and so early and so prominently placed in that article—gives an unintentional appearance of carelessness or disregard for the subject.

This article is currently protected (understandably, given some of the aggressive postings on this page), so I must trust someone who has the right to edit the article to make this change. Whoever you are, I thank you. —104.244.192.36 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much. Dr. K. 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Refugee camps

I was thinking that information about the refugee crisis and its effects on Greece should be included, as well as information about some camps that are located in the country and the many refugees who live on the streets of Greece and what the government's response is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayib24 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Mass protests" because of Macedonia name dispute

Should be included, shouldn't it? According to the media, there seems to be more Greek people and rage involved in these mass protests than in the mass protests about corruption and tax avoidance during the debt crisis. ImproveTheWiki (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think every single event happening in Greece should be included in the article about Greece. We have separate article about the Macedonia naming dispute. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I totally understand and agree.

Question: For an English-language Wikipedia article about a country, if national sources have other and conflicting relevancy and content perceptions than international English-speaking sources, what relevancy and content directions are to be preferred?--ImproveTheWiki (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe

The Aegean Sea is a natural border between Europe and Asia. This means that the islands off the Asian coast are clearly located in Asia. These islands are Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ikaria and most of the Dodecanese islands. This makes Greece definitely a transcontinental country, not just "a country located in Southern Europe". John Dick 78 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you but you are reverting everyone here, even me! Your highly disruptive actions must cease immediatelly. To edit war with the other editors and have things done your way is not how Wikipedia works. Cease immediatelly this edit warring or you will be blocked. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why these changes of yours which serve no purpose and especially do not improve upon our previous WP:CONSENSUS on the lead section. Now I just had to revert you one more time. Please stop immediatelly this behavior, disruption is only harmful to Wikipedia, not helpful. If you believe that any changes to the lead section which was the result of consensus, are needed, then I could appreciate if you ellaborate. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 06:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me but the lead is much better and more accurate the way I did it. It is the same, only better. John Dick 78 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, this arrogant attitude of yours isn't going to net you any good. Second, the changes you have proposed, although are valid to a point (I agree with them), the disruptive way you have tried to implement them does not help you and your goal, nor the way you have written it is contributing to the lead section's scope which is to provide summary info but without unecessary details. You have to understand that the lead section is the result of several discussions and any changes to it that have been reverted initially, should be taken to the talk page, analyze and explain them, and seek new WP:CONSENSUS before applying them. Edit wars and enforcing your changes while turning deaf ears to other people's calls, is not the way to go. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This information perhaps belongs in the main article, but not the lead. It would be WP:UNDUE to emphasise the proximity of a few islands this way at the lead. As far as arguments like Excuse me but the lead is much better and more accurate the way I did it. It is the same, only better., they won't do. They are too simplistic and ignore WP:CONSENSUS. They cannot be imposed by edit-warring either. Dr. K. 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole "some islands are in Asia" is highly pedantic and thus undue, especially for the lede. Islands are not really part of any continent, that's why they're islands. Regarding the eastern Aegean islands specifically, the "Asia" thing is a favorite canard of Turkish patriots, because if the islands are in "Asia" they rightfully "belong" to Turkey. I've seen this POV being pushed many times on wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I agree also with the comments about the POV-push regarding the island location. Dr. K. 22:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Islands are not really part of any continent, that's why they're islands." Very interesting view. I had never thought of this before. It solves a lot of problems really. Thank you. John Dick 78 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: The Turkish POV is groundless and Turkey is against the whole world with its claims to Greek islands. None ever supported Turkey over its claims of Greek islands, and I shall remind you that Greece received support from its allies, especially the USA, Russia, and the EU, including individual states such as France, Italy, Cyprus and even Germany, who have recognized and acknowledged the Greek sovereignty over the Aegean islands. I strongly disagree with the argument that "just because there is Turkish POV, Greece's transcontinental character shouldn't be acknowledged". This shows a fear syndrome towards Turkish POV and I am vehemently against this logic. For example we can not baptise Kastellorizo an "European island" or "island not belonging to any continental shelf" just because of some stupid fears that the transcontinental character of Greece could give more legitimacy to any of the ridiculous Turkish claims over its islands. Period. Greece is a transcontinental country and this only boosts the country's geostrategic importance and this has nothing to do with neighbors' claims to it. After all, the Turkish POV is just that: a POV. This bears no legitimacy or whatever and is none of Wikipedia's bussiness to bother with what Turks believe or say about the world belonging to them.

EDIT: I shall remind everyone here that the Turkish far-right spectrum is not patriotic, but ultra-nationalist. Everyone who follows closely the Turkish domestic affairs, is aware that the two terms should not be confused with each other, although at certain difficult political periods they become interchargeable. Turkish patriots never claimed Greek territory, only defended their country's unity against Kurdish seperatism. On the other hand, those who supported the mass killings of Armenians, and laid claims to Greek islands, are not really patriots in the normal sense of the word, but ultra-nationalists. That the ultra-nationalism has become the new staple in the Turkish political affairs for the past couple of decades, does not make it anymore valid than it ever was. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hawaii is in the Pacific. Should the U.S. article say that the U.S. is in North America, but also in the South Pacific?‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: you got a point. It is better that we stick with just "Southern Europe" for now. But bear in mind that the example of Hawaii isn't exactly valid one to bring here, as Hawaii is less than 1% of US's total territory, if my memory does not fail me. So it is weird to mention the US as a Pacific nation when the pacific territories constitute less than 1% of the nation's total. On the other hand, Greece's Asian territories of Rhodes, Samos, Chios Lesbos, and Carpathos, if combined, constitute about 5% to 10% of Greece's total territory. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 16:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @El cid, el campeador:. Even if the transcontinental percentage is 5 to 10% for Greece, and 1% for the US, these percentages are small compared to the total for either country. This is where LEAD and UNDUE come in. No need for weasel words ex. "mostly in Europe" to pedantically add this to the lead, or call Greece "transcontinental". As far as the comments regarding the Turkish nationalists, I don't think there is any "fear" about their intent. As I understand Khirurg's comment, it was intended to analyse their POV; I don't think he was worried about it. Dr. K. 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I know about the past fightings between Greek and Turkish Wikipedians and I am glad to hear this here is not the case I don't want this to ever be. I am newer user in Wikipedia than most of you are, and I wasn't part of this, so pardon me if I misunderstood the whole POV issue. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree with Silent Resident. And if we say the Greek islands do not belong to any continent, then Japan, Indonesia or the UK do not belong to any continent either. This is crazy. So we have to accept the fact that a big part of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea belong to the Asian continent. I would place the Europe / Asia borderline starting from the Turkish Straits and reaching down to somewhere between Karpathos and Rhodes. If you notice, this same line goes straight down to the Suez Canal. Greece is a transcontinental country for sure. John Dick 78 (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@John Dick 78: it is unfortunate that you went again on edit warring now. You have argued that, for this, you have my support, but no. Absolutley not. I may agree with you in the scope, but, like how I said above (copy pasting it here for you to read it carefully): It is better that we stick with just "Southern Europe" for now.. This is, because even if i had a valid argument, that doesn't make it more valid for inclusion to the article's lead. I highly recommend that you refrain from future edit warring with others and seek to build a new WP:CONSENSUS first, as this is how Wikipedia works. For now we stick with the current consensus, which is to not include this info on the Lead. Sorry. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Text became sandwiched due to larger pictures

Both on my monitor and on my mobile, I have noticed now a particular issue with sandwiched text in various parts of the article. Here an example photo: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e127/SilentResident/Wikipedia/Sandwich%20Issue_zpsr8hthb01.png

I have reduced abit the picture sizes to help resolve the issue. But that makes the maps smaller and harder to read at the first glance. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

After installing and uninstalling the web browser, I have realized that the pictures never had issues with their sizes and the text was never sandwiched; this was a problem affecting my web browser which made everything, especially the media files, disproportionally larger. I am reverting now my edits. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

This edit request to Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

This edit request to Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Greece has a police force, but there are still criminal issues in the country. The prison population in Greece including pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners came to a total of 9,956 people as of January 2017. With the prison population being so big, the confinement areas and jails are used to overcrowding. The total occupancy level based on official capacity was at 103.9 percent in 2014. Not only was it 100 percent full, but then some. Why is there such a problem with the intake of criminals? What has the government done to help the country's issue? Well, they have added many more prisons and jails to smaller towns. This not only helps with the overcrowding situation, but it adds jobs to others. This way, some people could be focused on getting a job at a prison, rather than being the one behind bars. Not only is over crowding a problem, but so is the spike in crime and poor human right records. The spike in crime was mainly caused by the country's recession. People did not have a source of money and they needed it to survive. As for the poor human rights records, prisoners recorded things such as poor sanitation, no clothes or food, and no medical attention. The medical attention they did receive was from prison guards, not professionals. Greece has tried to make improvements within the jails and prisons, but it still is not the greatest. The reasons may include the fact that the country does not have enough money to pay for prisoner needs. They are still people, and need the basic necessities to live. ^[1] Ambergert (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

References

^ Greece. (2018, April 02). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece

Schengen Area reference missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greece public debt 1999-2010.svg

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

Coat of arms

Check that the site of the Presidency of the Hellenic Republic translates the Greek term 'εθνόσημο' as 'national emblem' [12] and it uses the monochromatic version. --46.103.154.125 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a Third Opinion

A Third Opinion was requested on whether to include the League of Corinth in the infobox. There is also a Request for Comments on whether to include the League of Corinth in the infobox. The RFC takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution. The Third Opinion will be removed. The RFC should run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry. --Michail (blah) 03:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring to change the comments of others: a WP:TPO violation

SilentResident added to the case for "For" by specifically mentioning this in her edit summary. I was reluctant to be the editor who undertook the defence of the case and said so repeatedly both in direct response and also in my edit summary. My points are not exhaustive of the case. Implicit to that was that I would need help to formulate the best case for the "For" side. The points made by Silent Resident make the case for the "For" more complete. Given also that she marked them for that section, the removal of her points from the main case for "For" violates WP:TPO. The section arrangement was thought out by Phillyboy. I followed it, although I had my reservations. Now, per WP:TPO and out of respect for the points raised by the case for "For", he should stop the edit-warring suppression of the main points of the other side from the section he created. As I mentioned before, this editor has become the leading prosecutor of the case against including the Corinthian League in the infobox, and now he is edit-warring to suppress the points of the opposition. Such zeal is remarkable. More so since he was supporting the opposite point in 2011. So again, stop the heavy handed tactics and let an honest debate take place without fear of suppression. Dr. K. 17:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that you protest only the move to the discussion thread of points from the 'against' section, but not from the 'for' section, which left direct responses (discussions) in the 'for' section. Your assertion that this is "edit-warring to suppress the points of the opposition" is ridiculous and a violation of WP:AAGF and WP:NPA. --Michail (blah) 18:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You are in violation of AGF and I will tell you why. You say Interesting that you protest only the move to the discussion thread of points from the 'against' section, but not from the 'for' section, which left direct responses (discussions) in the 'for' section.. But you forget the arbitrary design of the "For"/"Against" arguments was your choice. The inherent flaw of such design is highlighted by your own violation of it by starting a discussion in a section that was supposed to highlight the points, not discuss. I reluctantly followed this flawed design, although I knew it had fatal flaws that would convert it to yet another discussion. Your error of adding a response to the "For" section, is not my fault. Now you accuse me of bad faith because you failed to obey your own rules. This is a sloppy argument and a violation of AGF. Dr. K. 18:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was started by SilentResident. Her addition was a series of three quotes by me, and then her response to those quotes. That is, by definition, a discussion. The 'for' and 'against' sections are to give a brief overview. That is why it was moved, and I am not going to sit here and take your tone. Have a good evening. --Michail (blah) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

SR's points were a rebuttal of your points but still formed the case for "For". That's yet another flaw of your design. But we have to live with the imperfections, or make yet another For/Against case based on the existing ones and then stop adding to the case section. But, as I said before, this design was inherently flawed. Finally, don't personalise this. If you think your tone, including your reverts, has been kind to the opposition, think again. Dr. K. 18:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Good to know that you think only the case against should have the option to use direct responses in the summary section. --Michail (blah) 18:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to attack my nuanced arguments in such sloppy way. I have offered you to rewrite the section entirely. That SR responded to your points was justifiable. If you think that her points needed response, please add to your own section, but not to the opposition section. As I said before, this mess is of your own creation. I'm only trying to fix it, against your heavy-handed intervention and accusations. Dr. K. 18:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I did add to my section. You can see that here. You can also see that it was moved from my section to the discussion without my consent. SR's responses, and my responses, were only removed from the 'for' section. They stayed in the 'against' section. You seem to be OK with that, which is frankly offensive to the whole concept of fair play. Go ahead and fix whatever you think needs fixing, format included, but drop the accusatory attitude please. --Michail (blah) 18:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

SR's responses, and my responses, were only removed from the 'for' section. They stayed in the 'against' section. You seem to be OK with that, which is frankly offensive to the whole concept of fair play. Talking about lack of AGF, and "dropping the accusatory attitude". This is absolute nonsense. I had no idea of this reshuffling in any shape or form, let alone endorse this nonsense, especially if it were unbalanced and favoured one side. Do not ever accuse me of such nonsensical attitude. You should know better than that. I had no idea this happened. I had not seen that your comments were moved, and I disagree with that move, especially since they were moved without your consent. Please move them back in the original section and restore the status quo ante before any reshuffling. Since I had nothing to do with that, you cannot hold me responsible for fixing it. Dr. K. 19:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this reshuffling mess happened, I cannot see what you are talking about. Instead of getting hammered by more accusations, let me make it simple for you: I think the For section is ok. Now, please reshape, reword, modify at will, add to or remove from the Against section anything you want if you think it is missing or was removed for whatever reason. Carte Blanche permission. Is this ok by you? Dr. K. 19:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What is nonsense is you claiming you had no idea that it happened and then decided to cherry-pick which bits you wanted to reinstate from the discussions section to the summary section. --Michail (blah) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to restore SR's comments to the For section. You hold me responsible for not keeping track of the reshuffling that took place during during the removal of SR's comments. I was only focusing on restoring her comments. If you saw anything amiss you could WP:SOFIXIT. Instead you chose to continue your silly hammering, even after I gave you a Carte Blanche to do whatever you wanted to demonstrate to you my unreservedly Good Faith. Your response is indicative of the depth of ABF toward me. Dr. K. 19:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You are literally accusing me of a WP:TPO violation while at the same time cherry-picking which bits get put back into place and which don't, you've started this conversation not on one thread, but on two, you've accused me of "edit-warring to suppress the points of the opposition", of "not having respect", and of "heavy-handed tricks". When you actually realised what has happened, did you apologise for all those accusations? And did you fix it? No. Are you actually joking that I'm the one with bad faith here? --Michail (blah) 20:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your repetition of the accusation of cherrypicking, despite my repeated attempts to explain my case to you shows that you you do not intend to backtrack from your PAs. Your actions following the reshuffling were indeed heavy-handed and in violation of TPO. You should have explained your case instead of removing SR's comments. I am not responsible for the effects of the reshuffling and your edit-warring following the reshuffling. There is nothing to apologise for. Dr. K. 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, I moved it further down to the discussions section. End of discussion on my part, have a nice one. --Michail (blah) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: My comment ...removing SR's comments., in context, means removing SR's comments from the For section and placing them elsewhere. More concisely it should have been described as "reshuffling". In any case, this is my last comment here as well. Best to you also. Dr. K. 20:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

something strange is going on

A copyvio tag was placed in the History section on the grounds that it is a copy paste from this book [13]. I thought this was really strange, since I wrote most of that section many years ago [14] (the book has 2017 as a publication date). For example, here is the history section as it looked in December 2016 [15] - very similar to what it is today. It seems like it is the book itself that is a word by word copy of the wikipedia article. Then I looked at the chapter that the book has on France - same story, it is a word by word copy of France#History. It's strange because Routledge is ostensibly a reputable publisher, but I really do think we have a case of an author plagiarising wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, yes, what a shame that piece of crap got into Routledge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) ... And by the way, by "piece of crap" I meant the book, not your Wikipedia material... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They won't know, perhaps, if someone doesn't tell them. (Although you would think every major publisher would use plagiarism detection software as a matter of course.) Can one of you make an overture to them, to let them know? @Khirurg and Future Perfect at Sunrise: Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

~~Notwithstanding the opposition that suffers from Routledge envy~~, way to go Khirurg; your piece was published by proxy by such august organisation. Dr. K. 10:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to let them know because I found out after I plqced the tag, most of the text was plagiarised from me (including the but about the League above) which I put in in 2012, as well as the bit about the Roman Empire put by someone else later in 2012. I’m making a list of bits that were plagiarised and when they were put on wikipedia. Overall 4 editors have been plagiarised (that I have found as of now). Will keep everyone posted later today. It’s disgraceful that someone who is actually a tutor at a university would blatantly copy wikipedia. And the irony? The introduction section of the book poses the question How do we choose our sources? *giant facepalm* —Michail (blah) 10:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's highly idiotic too, because wikipedia is read by millions. The likelihood of getting caught is 100%. Khirurg (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Caught is exactly what he got. Literally the entire chapter is taken from a Greece instance sometime between 26/05/15 and 16/11/16. Take a look at my findings below:

CONCLUSIONS

The list above lists only significant additions I could identify as plagiarism. The entire chapter is taken from Wikipedia and it is impossible to list every single addition that was plagiarised.
This is definitely a case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. The odds of numerous users all plagiarising a book which was first published 5 years after the majority of the edits are astronomically low.
This was intentional. There is no reference anywhere in the book [the parts that are visible on Google] of this being taken from Wikipedia. The copyright page of the book states that the right of Andreas D. Boldt to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This guy teaches at Maynooth University in the German Studies department (he is listed under Technical). Their Regulations [for students] define plagiarism as Plagiarism involves an attempt to use an element of another person’s work, without appropriate acknowledgement in order to gain academic credit. I see no reason why this would be OK for staff. Plagiarising something, let alone something as publically-accessible as Wikipedia, is unacceptable.
The last addition of new content I have identified was on 26 May 2015. The last removal of content present in both the book and Wikipedia I have identified was on 16 November 2016. Therefore, the plagiarism took place betwen 26 May 2015 and 16 November 2016.
There must be a revision of Wikipedia between 26/05/15 and 16/11/16 that matches the text of the book by 100% accuracy (accounting for minor amendments to the text). The book was published in March or April of 2017.
It is possible more chapters of the book are taken directly from Wikipedia, and if so they could be matched with previous revisions of other articles.
I will be contacting Routledge and Maynooth with said evidence.
I have added {{Backwards copy}} to the top of the article and will remove any references using this book per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. --Michail (blah) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked the France article and it's the same story there. I bet he did with all the countries. Khirurg (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely seems beyond all reasonable doubt. Thank goodness this was actually good content, lest the world could have ended up with more Brazilian aardvarks… [[16]] --Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's quite... Boldt. --Michail (blah) 18:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the feedback loop phenomenon in the "Brazilian aardvark" story is scary. Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Thankfully, Wiki's reputation for nationalist edit warring actually has a boon of preventing similar phenomena in that realm, where Wiki has had some questionable content that stayed around for quite awhile -- such as 13 years of connecting random placenames in the South Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Pakistan and even Sumatra to supposed Serbian roots [[17]] which stayed around from 2005 to 2018 when I finally removed it, it having been unchallenged for all that time [[18]].--Calthinus (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Like Khirurg said, this was done on France as well. It's funny you mention Brazilian aardvarks, because Brazil was used as well! I didn't do too much research on this, but I think it is quite conclusive based on the above and on the fact that the following extracts from the Brazil and France page are found in the book:

Brazil: The land now called Brazil was claimed for the Portuguese Empire in 1500, with the arrival of the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Alvares Gabral. The Portuguese encountered indigenous peoples divided into several tribes, most of which spoke languages of the Tupi-Guarani family, and fought among themselves. THough the first settlement was founded in 1532, colonisation was effectively begun in 1534, when King Dom Joao III of Portugal divided the territory into the fifteen private and autonomous Captaincy Colonies of Brazil)
France: France was a member of the Triple Entente when World War I broke out. A small part of Northern France was occupied, but France and its allies emerged victorious against the Central Powers at a tremendous human and material cost followed by the interbellum years were marked by intense international tensions and a variety of social reforms ontroduced by the Popular Front government (annual leave, eight-hour workdays, and women in government).

These are supposed to be his case studies. He has blatantly ripped off Wikipedians' work and presents it as his own analysis. In the case study of France the book says Notably the Charlie Hebdo attack in January which provoked the largest public rallies in French history, gathering 4.4 million people, and the November attacks which resulted in 130 deaths, the deadliest attack on French soil since World War II, and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004, which is plagiarised from France, followed on the same page by his "conclusion": I believe that a possible Fraxit will inevitably lead to the collapse of the European Union. Clearly no distinction of others' work/the author's own work.

The following countries are touched-upon in the book:

Confirmed plagiarised: Brazil, France, Greece
No plagiarism found as of yet: Germany, Russia/Russian Empire/Soviet Union, Turkey/Ottoman Empire, China, India/British Raj/Pakistan/Bangladesh, United States of America, England, Iraq, European Union

Might be worth dropping those articles a message on their talk page. I've done this already for France and Brazil. --Michail (blah) 03:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa:. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Too many images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, to revert to the previous images, it is necessary to go back to the version from 21 July [19]. Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Cplakidas. As an immediate remedy to the history section, I propose keeping (

) or removing (

) the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the number of images relative to the number of words in this article is already high... If you take a look at what we need to strive for, Featured Article class country articles, Australia has an image-to-words ratio of 1:723, Canada 1:635, and Germany 1:442. The article as it is now is at 1:337 - a higher density of images. Your revison contained a whopping 183 images (!!) at a ratio of 1:167. The current article, for reference, has 94 images. Of the others listed, Germany had the most at 54. --Michail (blah) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello there,Firstly Greco22 if you want to talk about the issue I suggest making a new section(your issue is solved as of now).However there is still a discussion on the images.Should i change the images that we agreed on or should I wait for your approval.Thank you once again :) AlbusTheWhite (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Leave it for a while, to build up consensus. There seems to be general agreement that there are too many images in the article already (as I said, the current one has 94 images in it, as opposed to the Germany's 54) and we will need to discuss how to remove images without lowering the quality of the article. --Michail (blah) 06:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled, so I made some changes that think should be uncontroversial, based on the discussion. If we want to reduce the number of pics more, I suggest removing the three galleries (religion, visual arts, cuisine). But I will hold off for now. Khirurg (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I think galleries are a bit strange anyway, what is the point of them? This article is a general article on Greece, if someone wants to see works of Greek art they can go to the corresponding article. WP:GALLERY says that if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. "Other articles have more pictures" is not a valid argument, we're all here because we want to get this article to FA status, and it needs to comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Coincidentally part of the criteria are that the article is stable, i.e. no edit warring, and please can people not add images in the article before we agree to the change first. There are still too many images in the article and there is WP:SANDWICH. Most sections are too small and a single image will be enough. What is the point of "Towerhouses of Mani peninsula" and "The Greek basketball team"? They do not contribute anything substantial and are superfluous, there are more relevant pictures already in the article. The galleries under "religion", "visual arts", and "cuisine" should all be removed. Also the arrival of Otto is more pivotal than his departure. --Michail (blah) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018

This edit request to Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The GDP_PPP field in the infobox contains a syntax error, the opening part of the template is missing, please replace the [ after <ref> with {{cite web|url=

Current:<br /> | GDP_PPP = $313.400 billion<ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/GRC/|work=[[World Economic Outlook]] Database, January 2018|publisher=[[International Monetary Fund]]|accessdate=December 2017|location=Washington, D.C.|date=5 January 2018}}</ref>

Correction:<br /> | GDP_PPP = $313.400 billion<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/GRC/|work=[[World Economic Outlook]] Database, January 2018|publisher=[[International Monetary Fund]]|accessdate=December 2017|location=Washington, D.C.|date=5 January 2018}}</ref> Axel Amsterdam (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC) updated to fix broken {{cite}} templates, by Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for pointing it out. The data needed to be updated as well. --Michail (blah) 02:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

AGAINST

Is there any reason why AGAINST is bolded and all capitals? As far as I recall, when a !vote is taken, the support or oppose comments are bolded, but not all capitals. Dr. K. 23:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

In my case it was simply because I copy-pasted a prev. vote, following my normal lazy practice - I have de-capitalised. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] Greece. (2018, April 02). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece

[1]