Talk:Greece: Difference between revisions

semi-protected 2/dec/2011

this article is not semi-protected like similar articles form other countries

Disgusting photos

User Thiagoreis leon replaced some nice photos that were around for quite some while with some disgusting ones, particularly that of Syros. Can someone please revert back to the stable version? Thanks. 178.128.248.160 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! Appreciated!178.128.248.160 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for the great suggestion. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The images were generally out of control, far too many had been added, causing spillovers of images from one section into the next. Some had also been enlarged far too much. I have tried to remedy the situation to the best that I could. Athenean

(talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the lead

Not sure about the latest additions to the lead [1]. What is a "competitive string of republics and monarchies"? "...was ended by the Greek military junta of 1967–74, which saw a a republican constitution enacted by the junta adapted by plebiscite, following the restoration of democratic government" is horribly complicated and confusing to those who are not familiar with the events, as is "it has consistently been the only country with the term in its name to bear the rank." What does that even mean? I also don't think the 2012 elections should be mentioned in the lede per WP:RECENT. Thoughts? Athenean (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We need to simplify the lead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, I also agree. Just to point out the following: It is said that Greece has a "relatively" high standard of living. The standard of living in Greece is not "relatively" high, it is absolutely high, when compared with the world average. When a country is ranked as no 21 in quality of life (ref Newsweeks 2010 assesment) and no 22 in Quality of Life index out of maybe 180 countries, then i think the term "relatively" must go. It should say "high standard of living" as it does for instance in other countries like Portugal or Spain with equal if not lower living standards. Thank you.91.217.243.37 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rebel Rousers: Wikipedia is no Playground for Political Views...

It is rather hard to explain, but fairly simple to correct. The Title of the Section is:'Cities'. Somebody placed an 'Anti-Obamacare'-GIF Image there. Under any circumstances the placement is utter rubbish and should be replaced IMMEDIATELY.

Emdeelf (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. This was a piece of vandalism sneakily added to a piece of template code that was automatically included on this page, and not very easy to spot for this reason. It's been fixed now though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Small question about the lede

Hello everyone. I've been browsing through the Ancient history articles recently and something struck me about the first line in the third paragraph in the lede.

Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of Ancient Greece, which is considered the cradle of all Western civilization.

I note that the Ancient Greece article largely focuses on matters after the Greek Dark Ages and seems to skip over the Mycenaean period. I was wondering if anyone editors more au fait with the subject material could let me know if this was this deliberate? Dolescum (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Emerging Market

This is not controversial anymore, 4 indices (MSCI, Standard and Poor's, Dow Jones, and The Economist) have classified it as such. I don't see anything wrong with this since the richest country in the world (China) is an "emerging market".--Theparties (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You produced a synthetic edit. The RS call the economy "advanced" and "high-income", then you interjected "emerging", but "emerging" refers to the "market" not the "economy", so this is synthesis. In addition this detail is WP:UNDUE for the lead of the country article, but given that you have two sources perhaps you can add this detail to the economy of Greece article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Market" and "economy" are clearly two words for the same thing. And if you look at the article for developed economies, pretty much half of those demoted Greece as well. (Personal attack removed). --Theparties (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No they are not. They have two different articles, cf. Market, Economy; and they refer to different concepts and procedures. As far as your personal attacks, I removed them and while reminding you about WP:NPA, I also wish to comment that attacking other editors is both useless and unconstructive. In a wiki noone owns anything. This conversation is wide open to everyone and things are done by consensus. If you disagree with me you don't have to attack me or edit-war. You can wait for other editors to comment or seek other means of dispute resolution. So, hold your horses. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't attack me. Threatening only makes matters worse. Market and economy deal with the same thing: the trade of goods and services. The nuances are there only to confuse people. I really don't want to argue with people who don't understand so this is pretty much my last comment here. I doubt there's gonna be consesnsus.--Theparties (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Where did I actually attack you? Could you please elaborate? All I did in my reply above, was to tell you to be patient because this being a wiki can provide us with external advice to help resolve the disagreement without resorting to ad-hominems or uncivil behaviour. This is not an attack or threat as far as I can tell. FYI, I have asked at WP:3O for their opinion to help this dispute move along. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• This!. Honestly, I'm backing out. --Theparties (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think a standard template is a threat. Rather, it is standard information about 3RR, how to avoid it and what available options exist under those conditions. In any case the matter is in the hands of 3O and I will abide by whatever their verdict is. This is a wiki after all. But I think I mentioned that before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Δρ.Κ. on this one. Actually a user continuously changes the Developed market and Emerging Market articles and, without sourcing, excludes Greece from the Developed market listings of various organizations, while including them in the Emerging market listings of the same organizations. He also included "nice" sentences like: "Grece was kicked out of developed market in 2013"....Now as far as I know only MSCI has actually downgraded Greece. But as Dr.K says, it is irrelevant. Downgrading from such an organization doesnt of course mean that the economy of Greece is not a developed, advanced one. Astarti34 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with you Astarti34. Thank you for taking the time to comment. The references for the economy of Greece being developed and advanced come from the World Bank and the IMF, two very strong and reliable sources. Also to put this downgrading at the lead of the article of Greece is POV and WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K I would appreciate if you could also pay attention to Developed Market and Emerging Markets articles, as per above. Thanks. Astarti34 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Astarti. I'll have a look as soon as I get a chance. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up this review - I'll have a read through now and given on the size and complexity of the article I will leave some initial comments within 48 hours. I mainly focus on copyediting issues. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm sorry to say that this article did not pass this GAN. The notable problems in this article were the lack of referencing in some places, the issues with the lead and some citation needed tags still need addressing. I have left all information on how to deal with those problems below. The only reason why this GAN did not pass is that I thought that all this work could not be addressed within seven days. Please read the comments below!

However, ALL IS NOT LOST! If you can address all of these issues below and either renominate this at GAN or ask me to review it again, then I'd say this article would have a high chance of passing. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• This a big problem here. Per WP:LEADCITE it is best (and a must for Good Article) to remove or relocate all citations in the lead. Greece's lead section has approximately fifteen inline citations. All of these have to be either removed or relocated into the article!
• "Greece is a democratic, developed country with an advanced, high-income economy" - advanced what? This doesn't make any sense, does it have an advanced high-income economy? The comma adds confusion!
• "Greece is a founding member of the United Nations, a member of what is now the European Union since 1981" - what does 'what is now' mean? Hasn't the European Union always been the European Union?

Greece was the 10th member to join the EEC (European Economic Community) as EU was called back then, in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFGR (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

• While the prose in this section is good, this section contains no references.

Earliest settlements to 3rd century BC

• "are believed to have been composed by Homer in the 8th or 7th centuries BC" - it's probably best to put this in chronological order to 7th or 8th centuries BC
• The whole bottom half of the section needs to be referenced - maybe moving some from the lead to down here would be a good idea?

Medieval period

• "suffered from the dislocation of the Barbarian Invasions" - in the article this is in italics? Does it have to be?
• "In the 14th century much of the Greek peninsula was lost by the Empire" - which Empire? The Byzantine or Roman?

Ottoman period

• There are at least eight page needed tags in this section, they have to be all eliminated if this section needs to meet the GA criteria.
• "While Greeks in the Ionian Islands and Constantinople lived in prosperity, the latter achieving positions of power within the Ottoman administration" - this sentence isn't great grammatically. How about While Greeks in the Ionian Islands and Constantinople lived in prosperity, Greeks living in Constantinople achieved positions of power within the Ottoman administration
• "effectively turning the rural Greek populations into serfs" - assuming the reader doesn't know what this means, how about changing it to serfdom?
• "Greeks usually took arms against the Empire, with few exceptions." - does this mean they fought or rebelled against the Empire?
• The final paragraph in this section needs at least a couple more references to achieve GA criteria.

Greek war of independence

• "After years of negotiation, three Great Powers, Russia, the United Kingdom and France" - this makes them sound like they're a bit holy. Does this suggest that Russia, UK and France were the only superpowers at the world in that time?
• Again, the bottom half of this section is unreferenced.
• There is also one page needed tag that needs to be dealt with.

19th century

• The entire section is unreferenced!
• "the Great Powers installed a monarchy under Otto" - who were the Great Powers? And who is Otto?
• "Corruption and Trikoupis' increased spending to create necessary infrastructure" - this makes it sound like corruption and Trikoupis are two different people. Also it doesn't specify how Trikoupis was corrupt?

20th century to present

• The bottom half of this section is unreferenced - it needs to be referenced if it were to meet the GA criteria.
• "In the following years, the struggle between King Constantine I and charismatic Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos" - does charismatic really need to be here?
• "During part of WWI" - it is always best if World Wars be mentioned in their full names (First World War, for example). How about During parts of the First World War
• Has to be objective on Greko-Turkish war section. The effects of war are told onesided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.87.42.210 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography and climate

• The prose here is good and well acceptable, however large parts of the section are unreferenced!

Political parties

• This section had an outdated tag and the problems here needs to be addressed.
• The final paragraph is unreferenced!

Military

• The prose here it good, but the entire section has no references! All sections must be referenced at least to a bare minimum to meet the GA criteria.

Eurozone entry

• The prose here is good, the only problem is that there is a citation needed tag that needs to be dealt with!

Debt crisis

• "....and Great Britain third with 12.6%" - this should be linked as United Kingdom as Great Britain refers to the island itself.

Transport

• The entire section is unreferenced! :'(

Migration

• There is one citation tag here that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise the prose here is excellent.

Languages

• The first half of the section is unreferenced, and there is another citation needed tag. Otherwise no problems here!

Education, literature, cinema and cuisine

• All of these sections have no references (cuisine section has one ref and a citation needed tag)!However, no copyediting issues in either of these sections.

Music

• Prose is good but again no references. The article needs at least a few in each section to pass GA.

Close

This article is one of the most viewed and most popular on all of Wikipedia. The serious problems here are the referencing issues, tags that need to be addressed to and a few minor copyediting issues which I have mentioned above. All of this is considered too much work to do in seven days. However, all is not lost. If you can address all of these issues and find some references to link into a few times in some of the empty sections then this article does stand a chance. Once all of these issues have been fixed, you can renominate the article for GAN. You can ask me to review it again if you want it to be swiftly passed or you can get someone else to have another look! I'm so sorry that this didn't pass. However, I think it can be passed if all of these issues have been clarified and I wish it the very best of luck in doing that! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics section is outdated. All the sources cited in the infobox and most in the article, have the 2001 census as its primary source of data. According to the 2011 census results Greeks are 91.6% of the total population, Albanians are 4.4%, Bulgarians are 0.7%, Romanians are 0.4% and so on. I suggest that the demography article sections get updated acccording to the most recent census.Hansi667 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Albanians include those that have Albanian citizenship. If we exclude ethnic Greeks of Albanian citizenship then we have the number of ethnic Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Censuses in Greece do not count ethnic affiliation, but citizenship. That means that Armenians, Albanians or even Germans that were granted the Greek citizeship are counted in the census as Greeks. On the other hand, as you said, there are ethnic Greeks that hold Albanian, Russian, Armenian or Georgian citizenship and not Greek. These people are counted as Albanians, Russians, Armenians or Georgians respectively. People that have dual citizenship (Greek and another) are counted as Greeks. This is the case in the 2011 census and this was also the case in the 2001 census.

The numbers given in the infobox are those of the 2001 census, and thus they are outdated since there is a census carried out in 2011. What I say is that the numbers of the 2001 census should be replaced by the respective numbers of the 2011 census. Your statement has nothing to do with the previous. It says that any Greek census gives no figures for ethnic affiliation, which is true, but if we accept this, we can use the neither the 2011 census data nor the data of the 2001 census. Any suggestions? Hansi667 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

This page has been significaly changed over the years from people from the republic of fyrom altering the truth as it feats them to present minorities i wish to restore some maps to the way they where till 2009 and add some more discoveries . EleutheriosBenizelos (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly is the problem in the article? --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hellas vs Greece

Hellas as used by Homer seems to have indicated a region in the Greek mainland, possibly near Phthia or in Phthia. Currently a search for Hellas in English wikipedia leads to an article on modern Greece, without disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamnelis (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality of life in Greece

I don't feel like the following sentence is accurate for now because of the horror that is Golden Dawn:

...a high standard of living and a very high Human Development Index.

Was this addressed before or not? Did anyone ignore the chance to do so because they did not pay enough attention to the recent Greek protests? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there abound little νεοδημοκράτικα trolls editing away any mention that disproves their la la phantasy of a "thriving Greece" under Samaras. They've gone so far as to delete a mention of the unemployment percentage in the economy summary, in order to leave an outdated description which paints a laughable picture of "high standards of living" in current Greece! Disgusting κομματόσκυλα. 46.12.123.57 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and possibly here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014

there are extremely important mistakes in this page that need to be corrected in order to prevent racism and discrimination. The term Greece has to be changed to Hellas or Elada and the term Greek has to be changed to Hellenic. It is extremely inappropriate to say Greece and next to it in brackets to misinterpret this in the Hellenic Language and state that it is pronounced by the indigenous people as Elada. This is inaccurate and I would be more than happy to correct this whole text.

Iatros1 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name to be primarily used in the article will be the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. If you would like to suggest specific changes to the article, feel free to do so, but suggesting that the name of the country be changed wholesale throughout the article will not happen. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

It appears that the 'ethnic groups' section should include the correspodent numbers. For example if a community belongs to ethnic group X, but at the same time are holders of citizenship Y, then in the section 'ethnic groups' they should be counted as X. Moreover, the fact that ethnicity data is based on the previous census (of 2001) doesn't mean that they should be removed from infobox.Alexikoua (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I wouldn't object alternatively the addition of a footnote inside the infobox, provided that the 'ethnic groups' section is renamed.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The question still exists why an "ethnic groups" section shouldn't have data about ethnic groups [[2]]. In fact this isn't clear, on the contrary it's simply wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments seem reasonable. But you should provide with data from a reliable source that gives numbers for ethnic groups in Greece. This could prove a tricky quest since Greece doesn't give figures for ethnic groups in its censuses. Yet you can't mingle data from from 2008 with data from 2011 and create new data. This is violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Apart from this, by adding ethnic Greeks with Albanian citizenship with the figures given for Greek citizens in the 2011 census, to find the numbers of ethnic Greeks, overlooks the fact that there are non-ethnic Greeks that are Greek citizens and thus are counted as Greeks in the census data. Just to name a few: Predrag Đorđević (ethnic Serb), Milan Tomić (ethnic Serb), Vlantimir Giankovits (ethnic Serb), Dušan Bajević (ethnic Serb from Bosnia), Branislav Prelević (ethnic Serb), Anna Prelević (ethnic Serb), Andrej Kravárik (ethnic Slovak), Theodoros Baev (ethnic Bulgarian).

Official data from the Greek Ministry of the Interior [3] show that from 2011 to 2013 65,853 people acquired the greek citizenship. 44,699 of them were ethnic Greeks that previously did't have the greek citizenship. 13,519 were non-ethnic Greeks. The rest is 7,653 could be either ethnic Greeks or non-ethnic Greeks. An article in Kathimerini (a greek newspaper) states that from 2008 to 2010 the greek citizenship was given to 30,347 people. 28,462 were ethnic Greeks. Given this data the number of ethnic Greeks residing in Greece and don't have the greek citizenship has most possibly fallen to 115,000 people from 2008. But such a statement is original research and it is violating WP:NOS. Although suitable for the talk page, it can't be in the article.

In my opinion the footnote in the infobox clearly states and disambiguates that the numbers given in the ethnic groups cell give figures for citizenship. It would be bright though to change the cell name from ethic groups to citizenship. Another solution would be to completely remove the ethnic groups cell from the infobox, as it is the case in the article for France and Italy.

PS. I' d like to thank you for making me search and find all of this this data. Hansi667 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

In the beggining, you are saying "shares land borders with Albania to the northwest, the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria[...]" it is not Republic of Macedonia but F.Y.R.O.M. 84.205.231.43 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, please see WP:NCMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Greece

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greece's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Harris":

• From New Testament: Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
• From Greeks: Harris, William Vernon (1989). Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press. p. 136. ISBN 0-674-03381-7.
• From Goldman Sachs: Harris, Andrew. "Goldman Sachs Aluminum Antitrust Suits Shipped to NYC". December 16, 2013. Bloomberg. Retrieved 8 February 2014.
• From Italy: Har, Michael H. History of Libraries in the Western World, Scarecrow Press Incorporate, 1999, ISBN 0-8108-3724-2
• From Byzantine Empire: Harris 2003; Read 2000, p. 124; Watson 1993, p. 12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"high standards of living"

The "high standards of living" blurb in the Greek economy synopsis is straight out of the wikipedia article circa 2007. As if the economical crisis had no devastating results in the standard of living in Greece. Moreover, a bad faith editor presumed to delete a single passing reference to the country's 26% unemployment rate, supposedly because "the Greek crisis is discussed in another paragraph". What kind of logic is that? So the summary on the Greek economy will show outdated 2007 information about "high standards of living" and "developed country index" while the OECD has downgraded the country to "developing", and the standard of living has gone to the pits? Please keep your partisan "new democrat" political glasses out of editing. I will wait for some kind of justification for the 2007 summary on the Greek economy, and unless given one, will reedit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.123.57 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

EU accession in infobox

Somebody has been pushing hard [4] to get the date of the EU (or EEC) accession into the list of historical steps in the "Formation:" section of the infobox in this and other country articles. (As far as I can see, they have been the only editor to insert these entries in all those articles, silently, without any discussion anywhere; in some articles it has stuck so far, in others it was reverted. Here at Greece they stubbornly re-inserted it three times at least).

I'm not convinced the entry should be there. The section is headed "formation" for a reason; it means the steps that led towards the creation of the state as it is constituted today. The entry into the EEC in 1981 didn't turn Greece into a different state from what it was before.

Views? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be easy to resolve. This either goes for all EU states or none. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. And today, Greece has lost its complete sovereignty and is constituted in a different way than before 1981 because of its accession to the EU. Furthermore I wasn't the first one to add this entry in the "Formation". I first saw it in the article of the Republic of Ireland and some others and added it to the other ones. And I'm sorry for the edit war. -- Atoine85 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Atoine85. If it is found in the other EU states, then this is good enough for me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's found in the other articles because Atoine85 put it there. This [5] shows him newly adding it to 26 of the 28 member state articles, if I didn't mis-count. So, Atoine85, which "some other" articles beside Ireland had it before that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember. I'm positive Ireland had it. I didn't randomly add it. I saw it there and thought it made sense so I added it on other articles. I'll try to check which articles had it. -- Atoine85 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to check all of Atoine85's contribs but, from a limited sample, I see he was reverted at United Kingdom and Denmark‎ but his contribution has remained at Spain. So it seems there is no widespread consensus. As with all edits attempting to change similar information in multiple articles, I would suggest Atoine85 obtains wider consensus before any other attempts at implementating this edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My first contribution on Republic of Ireland. I just added "the". Indeed I was reverted there (at UK and Denmark; notice they are two eurosceptic countries). Yet I really think this information should remain. I completely agree with the fact that "Formation" means the steps that led towards the creation of the state as it is constituted today, and today, these states are EU states, therefore they are constituted differently because of the EU (let's take for example the euro, or EU legislation and so many other examples). -- Atoine85 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

One problem with that argument is that, at least for the early members (founding members and those that joined before the Maastricht treaties), the joining date didn't really mean much of such a change in soverreignty status. Back at that time, joining what was then the EEC did not yet mean sharing a significant portion of a country's sovereigntly rights, at least nothing comparable with what it is today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. Yet the accession to the EEC then led to the de facto accession to the EU in 1992 (and therefore a lost of sovereignty). -- Atoine85 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Edit-warring has erupted attempting to add WP:UNDUE, recentist original research at the lead of the article. This information may belong at the article of the economy of Greece but not at the lead of this article. Also the edit-warring edit is erasing the fact, and its source, that Greece is a democratic country. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The so-called edit warring has erupted because people who oversee this article have a blind-sense of patriotism. If you look at other articles, say the United Kingdom, United States, or even the Italian ones they all list unemployment and information. When you do CTRL+F on the Greece page a mention of unemployment is not even mentioned. Another thing, the reverted edit of the list of organizations that list Greece as an "emerging market" said there was only a single source. Of course two more were provided, yet of course, they were reverted by the same people that are too patriotic to allow important information to be offered on a wikipedia page. And the same excuse that it should be on the "Economy of Greece" page is unwarranted and invalid. How come it is okay for unemployment and inequality information to be posted on other countries' pages but when anything bad about the Greek Economy, or the country overall, is posted it is reverted and no valid argument is provided? There are plenty of sources that warrant the information to be provided and the "badmin" tactics really do need to stop. If you are so desperately offended by it, then do not bother to visit the page. What is added is relevant and hiding information isn't helpful! And you do not see this on any other page regarding a country. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) When you start controlling yourself and stop the personal attacks about "blind sense of patriotism" and "badmin" tactics (whatever this nonsense means), then I can discuss this with you. Otherwise any discussion under your attacks is simply useless. Please retract your PA nonsense as a sign of good faith. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sciophobiaranger I support the changes for all the reasons I've already stated (and without any bias). And I'm sorry, but no one is attacking anyone and the discussion can proceed. Califate123! (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but no one is attacking anyone and the discussion can proceed. Was I talking to you? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are telling me to control myself, yet you are the one participating with others in the exclusion of information due to a sense of nationalism. Once again, provide a good argument for removing the information. You see similar information on other countries' pages, so why is it not allowed on Greece's? It's not nonsense, it's extremely evident. Just give proper reasons for not allowing any information on unemployment, debt, and the fact that 3 major global firms have downgraded Greece's economic status. How come this information cannot be on a page about, you know, Greece? Stop calling our arguments "nonsense".--Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

...yet you are the one participating with others in the exclusion of information due to a sense of nationalism. It is evident to me that you still cannot control yourself since you are still using nationality arguments to attack me. When you have successfully controlled yourself please let me know. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Offer an argument or stop replying. It's as simple as that. Why do you keep reverting important and valid information?--Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Offer an argument or stop replying. Do you think that your ethnicity-based attacks constitute arguments? When you retract them, we can have a serious discussion. But discussion is useless under conditions of ethnicity-based arguments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not an attack of ethnicity, but you have offered no counter-arguments as to why you removed the information. Until you do so, it will be believed to be because of patriotism/nationalism. If you go on the page of the United States or United Kingdom, there are tons of information of debt, unemployment, and the status of the economy. So it does not make sense why Greece shouldn't include important information. So answer the question, why do you keep reverting the information? --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Until you do so, it will be believed to be because of patriotism/nationalism. "it will be believed" by whom? Please leave the WP:WEASELWORDS. Please read WP:AGF and try to stop this nonsense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's simply misleading. Greece's status as a developed country is independent of its classification as a developed or emerging market as defined by financial services companies. The former is an economic and geopolitical term, while the latter is used purely for private investment purposes. It is worth noting that Greece is still classified as a developed market by FTSE, which has a much higher profile than MSCI or Russell Investments. I'd certainly never heard of them before. In any case, the position of major international organizations, and Wikipedia's own article on the subject, should take precedence. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ for your excellent points. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the references provided, including some on Market journals, you'll see that "developed market" equals "developed country". But I give you that, no problem. I can change "country" to "market". But saying Greece has high standards of living is ludicrous considering that by the end of 2014 they will be 25 to 50% less than those of 2006/2007. Califate123! (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In reality, of course, things are not nearly so clear-cut. Greece is a developed country/advanced economy according to the CIA, IMF, OECD, World Bank, UN, etc., a developed market according to FTSE, and (since last year) an emerging market according to MSCI and Russell Investments. I agree with Dr.K. that any reference to the latter does not belong in the lead (per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT), and should instead be included in the Economy of Greece article. Have you even looked? By the way, the last person who tried to insert that information in the lead of that article has been blocked indefinitely. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 03:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fact remains that Greece is recognised as a developed country by the reliable sources mentioned by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ and we do not need to second-guess these reliable sources using WP:OR fillers such as "Nevertheless" and making up WP:SYNTH controversies. The lead is not the place to advertise that certain firms have downgraded Greece's status, while not mentioning that others, such as FTSE, have not. Such WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT controversies belong in the Economy of Greece article but certainly not at the lead of this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Another important detail that has yet to be mentioned in this discussion is that Greece is only classified as an emerging market by 2 of the 9 sources cited in the relevant Wikipedia article. It's hardly a consensus view. •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 09:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes are needed

Apparently, my and Sciophobiaranger's edits have been reverted by editors with Greek IP (go figure). Wikipedia is about truth, facts and not nationalism. Until 2013 everyone considered Greece a "developed market" but things have changed. At least three agencies have downgraded it to an "emerging" one. If you're going to state in the introduction that Greece is considered an advanced economy by the World Bank, you'll also have to present conflicting ideas, and they now exist. There is no mention of the economic crisis and instead everything is portrayed as perfect. That paragraph is totally biased.

Therefore, I propose changing from

Greece is a democratic,[16] developed country with an advanced high-income economy, a high standard of living[17][18] and a very high Human Development Index.[19]

to

Greece is a democratic high-income economy, according to the World bank, and has a very high Human Development Index, as classified by the UNDP.[16] Nevertheless, in 2013 Greece became the first country ever to be downgraded from "developed nation" status to "emergent economy" by MSCI, S&P Dow Jones, and Russell Investments, following what became known as the Greek Depression of the late 2000s-early 2010s.[17][18][19][20]

for a better encyclopaedia. Califate123! (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (just noticed talks are ongoing in the section above, so they can continue there if you prefer)

Agreed. They also reverted the added information added earlier in July about unemployment and debt. It seems that even when their arguments against adding it are fixed (e.g. added more than one source) they are still not fine with it and base their actions on either nationalism or lack of acknowledgment. It seems this is a continued cycle no matter what the information is on, unemployment, debt, and now the status of the country. Apparently all shouldn't be on a page about Greece!--Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, my and Sciophobiaranger's edits have been reverted by editors with Greek IP (go figure). Again, please leave this silly, ethnocentric attacks. And BTW, how do you know my IP? This is utter nonsense. Also, one more time: This stuff is WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE to be at the lead of the article. It may have a place at the Economy of Greece article but on the main article about Greece and especially at the lead is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one still dwelling on what I said 30 minutes ago. We are more than ready for a discussion without any form of (perceived) attacks. What you say makes no sense at all. Why is saying "Greece is an advanced economy according to the World Bank" accepted in the lead but "Greece is an advanced economy according to the World Bank but an emerging according to so and so" not? Should we remove every reference to the % of people living under a 1$ a day in articles about sub-Saharan countries as well? It makes no sense. Califate123! (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one still dwelling on what I said 30 minutes ago. Why? Do your comments have an expiry date? Either you retract your nonsense or own up to it. As far as the stuff you are edit-warring to try to add to this article it is clearly undue weight and recentist as I have already explained. It is obvious we are not going to agree any time soon so we have to wait for more editors to comment. It is useless to keep repeating the same points amongst ourselves. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, please leave this silly, ethnocentric attacks. Ethnocentric? No, it's a logical conclusion. Like what has been said, you do not see this on any other country's page. They all contain information about unemployment and economic status. But the main argument is in the category above so I will not type a lot. Here's a definition of "ethnocentric": "evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of one's own culture." So no, not ethnocentric. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnocentric? No, it's a logical conclusion. I still see no signs of you controlling yourself and stopping your ethnicity-based attacks. Please stop this nonsense as soon as you can. Good luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please use the section above. Califate123! (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling me to control myself yet you are the one calling other arguments/edits "useless" and "nonsense", and you continue to use adjectives that are meant to be demeaning in your argument. You called the conclusion "ethnocentric" when it does not even align to the definition of "ethnocentric". But you never answered the question, which shows who really needs the self-control.--Sciophobiaranger (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling me to control myself yet you are the one calling other arguments/edits "useless" and "nonsense", and you continue to use adjectives that are meant to be demeaning in your argument. But you forgot one thing: By "useless" and nonsense" I describe your insulting nationality-based arguments. You don't seem to understand that. As far as the definition of "ethnocentric", that's just semantics. I meant "ethnicity-centered" arguments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And I use "patriotism" and "nationalism" to describe the unwarranted edits. You do not see why there are no other conclusions, because there are no other logical arguments. Just explain why they're being removed, please. And the arguments are not ethnocentric, that just does not make sense. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And the arguments are not ethnocentric, that just does not make sense. I thought I explained that before. How about "ethnicity-centred"? In other words, centred on the ethnicity of your "opponents". As far as arguments, please see Θεοδωρος's comments above as well as mine based on WP:LEAD, UNDUE, RECENT etc. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A political party called "Golden Dawn" took over Greece in 2013, then afterward people from countries like Afghanistan were discriminated and not given citizenship there. Search for news about Greece since the rise of Golden Dawn, and then add such info to the article. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 17:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I object to the proposed changes, on the grounds that those who propose them have failed to grasp the rather crucial distinction between a developed country and a developed market. Since Greece is defined as a developed country according to every measure used in the relevant Wikipedia article, there is no reason to remove that definition from this article. The same applies to the IMF's classification of Greece as an advanced economy, which is also omitted from the proposed new wording. I propose that the relevant IMF source, which was once included in the text, be reinserted. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 17:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Greece was a developed country before 2013, and since then it's no longer developed because it suffers racism, declining economy, and increasing human rights abuses. Anyone paid attention to Amnesty International's reports on Greece? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support that claim? I sincerely doubt that Amnesty International issues pronouncements on country classifications. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 17:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's some links to sources:

http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/Amnesty-International-blasts-EU

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/golden-dawn-rise-far-right-euro-201441483840429923.html

http://www.epsu.org/a/10349

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/02/rise-of-greek-nationalist-golden-dawn-party-coincides-with-greeces-economic-crisis/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/23/golden-dawn-greece-european-election

}IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Another one:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/greek-court-orders-detention-of-far-right-golden-dawn-politician-1405003938

}IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So what are you saying, because Golden Dawn is on the rise we should downgrade Greece to 'developing country' status? There's also the KKK in the USA, let's downgrade that also. Wikipedia's own definition of "developing country" is: a nation with a lower living standard, underdeveloped industrial base, and low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries. Greece has a very high human development index, high standards of living (average compared to the north-west of Europe but way above the world average) and an industrial base which has declined severely because of the crisis. I fail to grasp the connection between Golden Dawn and the fact that you want to change the classification of Greece from 'developed' to 'developing'. With your latest source, are you seriously saying that Greece should be moved to developing status because it sent people to jail?! --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he actually thinks Golden Dawn "took over Greece in 2013". And that, as a result, Greece is no longer a developed country. Bizarre, I know. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ is right. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you do know that the National Front came 1st in the 2014 European Elections in France? Are you also arguing that France is no longer developed? --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful, he'll probably call you "ignorant" next. Everyone knows Golden Dawn conquered Greece in 2013! ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Philly boy92" hasn't recognized how much developed the United States and France are in contrast to their treatments of racism. France is already developed because of its technology, like the United States. However, both countries had have dealt with racism. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I have not recognised the development levels of France and the USA - it's that your argument is completely unfounded (unfounded is the polite version). What technology exactly is it that Greece lacks, and thus should be downgraded? What did France do to combat racism that Greece did not? Last time I checked, sending people to jail is what we do in the civilised world. Also, are you saing that Nazi Germany was an underdeveloped/developing nation because of the rampant racism in its top offices? I think what you don't recognise is that racism has nothing to do with how developed a countryis. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If the Human Development Index was adjusted for tighter human rights then both France's and the USA's HDI rankings are (at least slightly) lower. Racism is a human rights abuse. The infamous Nazi Germany's development level remains uncertain for me because while the economy recovered, it was criticized for its Holocaust. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 19:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then too bad that the HDI does not take into account human rights abuses. Until it does, this conversation is considered over by me, wikipedia is not a forum. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Official Religion doesn't show up

It's written in infobox but it doesn't seem to be working. Also The Greek Constitution recognizes the Orthodox Christian faith as the "prevailing" faith of the country, while guaranteeing freedom of religious belief for all written in the article. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Minorities

Minorities tab is empty. How did we miss that? See: Minorities in Greece --Kafkasmurat (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be covered here across the "migrations", "religions" and "languages" sections, within the "demographics" chapter, which seems like a reasonable solution to me. Is anything specific missing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

Please change the following sentence:

International railway lines connect Greek cities with the rest of Europe, the Balkans and Turkey, although as of 2011 they have been suspended, due to the financial crisis.

into

International railway lines connect Greek cities with the rest of Europe, the Balkans and Turkey.

as the railway lines are open again for international travel (may 2014).

87.251.49.80 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Using EURAIL to verify that service is restored: http://www.eurail.com/news/important-greece-train-update -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Greece is no more a Balkan country than Italy is?

That seems to be the assertion being made on the Balkans article by an editor who says that because there are some small Aegean islands in Greece that are close to the Turkish coastline (which the editor equates as being islands in "Anatolia") Greece is only partially within the Balkan peninsula, with the implication that Greece should not to be included amongst "countries whose territories lie completely within the Balkan peninsula" but should actually be amongst "countries that lie partially within the Balkan peninsula", making Greece no more a Balkan country than Italy is [6]. I've had some increasingly personal run-ins with this editor on other articles, so don't want to get into an edit war - so I am asking for some editors more expert in the field to give their opinions. Do it on the Balkans page please (I'm just asking on this page because it will be a busier talk page) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Education

I believe we should mention that the Greek Education System isn't satisfactory to provide knowledge, abilities etc. to the students. According to recent surveys, our system has ranked last in the EU. The governments of Greece have often made changes, without having any real result- for example, only this year (2014) thousands of students were left outside of the universities and the technological institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.233.176 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

In this lead sentence "This rich legacy is partly reflected by the 18 UNESCO World Heritage Sites located in Greece..." change 18 to 17 per http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/gr. 79.69.196.167 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent image additions

I have noticed that during my absence from Wikipedia a series of images, including but not limited to the Hagia Sophia and the arms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, were added to the article. Apart from the fact that these do not contribute to the history section per se, is there any particular reason they are there? In my opinion they make the article look incredibly populist and like the pages of a Greek state-sponsored history book. I think they should be removed and the history section made a bit more neutral. Further, there isn't really any reason why there should be four-five images per section, they make the article very crowded. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What does "relatively" high quality of life means in the intro?

I would appreciate if someone could explain to me what does "relatively" mean in the intro, when it describes the quality of life in Greece. The quality of life in Greece is by absolute standards HIGH. There is no relativity or anything. When a country has an very high HDI, ranking 29 in 187 countries, when Life expectancy is among the world's top 25, when infant mortality is among the best in the world, then there is no "relative" quality of life, there is only high quality of life. I think someone misinteprits the recent economic crisis, with the standards of living and quality of life. In Greece the standards of living remain high (and thus all indicators described before) despite the recent crisis. I believe, that unless someone explain this, the RELATIVELY wording should go. Thanks. 178.128.107.194 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

Greece is strategically located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. It also shares land borders with Albania to the northwest, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria to the north and Turkey to the northeast. Notis7 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2014 (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. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Greece

Section II, Article 3, page 18 of the the Constitution of Greece states that "The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ." It does not say the "Orthodox Christian faith", as User:Dr.K. reverted back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs)

@Andreas11213: Thank you for supplying the quotation. This helped me verify your edit and also add an inline source. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

Coolmaze123459 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

There is a mistake in the following phrase of the Wikipedia document for GREECE. This is the existing phrase: "Crete is the largest and most populous island; Euboea, separated from the mainland by the 60m-wide Euripus Strait, is the second largest, followed by Rhodes and Lesbos."

This is the correct phrase which must replace the existing one: "Crete is the largest and most populous island; Euboea, separated from the mainland by the 60m-wide Euripus Strait, is the second largest, followed by Lesvos (3rd) and Rhodes'Bold text'." 2.86.206.212 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Distomo massacre picture

The picture tagged as Distomo massacre memorial, is in fact a Greek Resistance monument. It was raised in memorial of the execution of 110 ELAS prisoners and 24 civilians by the Axis occupation forces, a different incident from that of the Distomo massacre. It is placed in Karakolithos a location nearby Tsoukalades and not in Distomo. Some pictures of the Distomo massacre memorial can be seen here, while there pictures of Karakolithos here. Both picture sets are from the official page of the Distomo-Arachova-Antikyra municipality. We should either change tha tag of the picture, replace it with a correct Distomo memorial picture or completely remove it. Any sugestions? Hansi667 (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good notice.Alexikoua (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014

I would like the last paragraph of the introduction changed

from

Greece is a democratic developed country with an advanced high-income economy, a high quality of life and a very high Human Development Index. Greece is a founding member of the United Nations, was the 10th member to join the EEC (European Economic Community) as EU was called in 1981 (and the eurozone since 2001) and is also a member of numerous other international institutions, including the Council of Europe, NATO, OECD, OSCE and the WTO. Greece's economy is also the largest in the Balkans, where Greece is an important regional investor.

to

Greece is a democratic and developed country with an advanced high-income economy and very high standard of living. A founding member of the United Nations, Greece was the tenth country to join the European Communities (precursor to the EU) and has been part of the Eurozone since 2001. The nation is also a member of numerous other international institutions including the Council of Europe, NATO, OECD, OSCE and the WTO. Greece has the largest economy in the Balkan Peninsula, making it ninth in the Eurozone and 43rd in the world.

Jonathan'sCat (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Rewrite was clearer, and the 'high quality of life' wasn't explained before, so removed. Amelie poulain (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed ethnic percentages from the infobox

I have removed the ethnic percentages from the infobox because 1) such figures are almost always not worth the trouble, the issue is complex and not suited for inclusion in the infobox and 2) the quoted figures were not to be found in the sources given. Athenean (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree for the ethnic percentages not being needed in the infobox . In many articles about states , such is the case , and for a good reason . Albeit i got confused and thought that the information was removed from the demographic section thus my revert . My opinion for what is worth . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for being reasonable. But please indent your comments for future reference. Athenean (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This shows that Hansi667 understands that this field is for ethnicity and not for citizenship, yet s/he wants to add it on the basis it is "useful information" and also because such practice exists at the Spain article. Clearly, both of these reasons are not valid. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)