Talk:2008 Greek riots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

End date

It appears that trying to insert the Jan 9th end date is a violation of our "no original research policy" (WP:OR) - the editor is taking certain facts (only 80 schools/6 NTAUs/future planned demos are about Gaza) and using them as evidence the original event is over (see WP:SYNTH). We need a reliable sources saying the event is over. Exxolon (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the claim that there is an end date is not only original research but fortune-telling! The fact that the civil unrest has diminished in scale is not evidence that it has ended: on the contrary, it is evidence that it continues on a reduced scale. The real story of when it is thought to have ended has yet to be told, and requires waiting for events either to unfold or not. I don't understand this impatience about writing up contemporary events as if they are established history. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it solve anything if we took the year out? There are no other pages about riots or civil unrest in Greece so a 2008 or 2009 disambiguation would not be necessary. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because some people are trying to put a specific end date in the article. Xenos2008 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understood it, the name of the article is one of the problems. End date aside, I don't think the year needs to be in the title. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are these riots, I dont see them since 9/1/2009 in the streets? Suppose the extremists become to shy with the new year... I suggest to put end date Apocalypse or Doomsday, after that maybe terrorism and trouble in limited number of schools cease to exist.Alexikoua (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles are written based on sources, not on self-evidence.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Call it December 2008 Greek Riots and stop worrying about the end date. The occasional demonstration, skirmish with the police, car burning or whatever, happened before Dec. 6 and will happen in the future. No "credible source" will ever proclaim a certain date as the "end date." Greek media speak about these events as something that happened in December, not as something ongoing.Sardath (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When will the 'civil unrest' end? I'm really afraid of walking out of my door. Please, can I go outdoors now, or this 'civil unrest' is a wiki uncyclopedian fabrication?Alexikoua (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorter versions ... problem

Can we discuss here your problem with my edits, please? "featuring PM K.Karamanlis","The GSEE does not rule", gun types and bullet sizes and a description of a second shooting have been removed. Now, can you tell us why this is POV and what is your objection to it??--Michael X the White (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that you alone decided to change the main part of the article without first trying to achieve a consensus on the talk page. So this is not my problem it's a problem of the people who added all the information you are trying to remove as minor details or whatever your excuse about removing them may be. If you're going to make the article shorter you should not remove parts of the core of the article which in this case is the section called riots and political crisis but to move some of the other sections information to subpages and write summaries of them on the page of the main article. The problem I have is not with you but with the fact that by removing this information you're actually miss-quoting the sources and eventually producing a POV based article. If you honestly wish to remove information from the article to make it easier to read you can divide the main section into subsections etc. But you cannot remove information from a section that has an expansion template on top of it because you (and only you) think that some of it are trivial details.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. why did you go ahead and changed the page just because I didn't have the opportunity to post an answer on this talk page is beyond me at least when I did it I tried to inform you on your talk page about what I would be doing.

P.S.2 If you honestly want me to help you make this article more "readable" I can but we have to talk about the changes first not just go ahead and cut whatever we want. If I went ahead and cut of a portion of the criticism of the coalition of radical left section without giving valid reasons you would be upset too.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. So start talking about the changes.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could start by splitting the Internetional reactions from the section they are currently in and create two sections which would then be moved to subpages and we could keep summaries of them on the main article what do you think?--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2 sections? International reactions- Demonstrations abroad? I think we could make that directly a new article (the entire section without splitting it). Do you have any propositions for the "The riots and political crisi" section (that is truly chaotic)? About Kaloyannis, nothing links the attack on his car to all this. And still I don;t see why we should include soo technical information about the second shoting in this article that is not about it.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

About the International reactions- Demonstrations abroad even if we create a new article containing both we would still have to split the oficial reactions of countries and the demonstrations.

About Kaloyannis I can find sources that link them I can have them on your talk page or theis talk page by tomorow

About the riots and political crisis I think we've got to keep it as it is only edits should be grammar syntax and other things like that.

The technical informations about the seccond shooting are needed cause they prove that this was a serious thing that is still not fully investigated.

The info about what was the broadcast that was interupted is needed because it's clear to me that the protesters chose that momment to interupt the broadcast.

if you want to ask me about the other "details" you want to remove I can give you serius reasons why they shouldn't be removed--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, it is a short mess, it should be larger. Ok, we should wait for the third opinion.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

where did you get that it is a small mess... not from what I said.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quoting you ;). I just say that the article is a terrible mess and cannot be improved by adding data.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think that it is a terrible mess. In fact it is much better than other articles in Wikipedia.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First you responded and then you reverted the whole article that's nice of you ?!!!! well I think I'm going to have to explain this once again. Your "shorter version" is in dispute the discussion needs to continue based on the undisputed edition of the article. I'm going to adress the rest of your questions in a minute.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, there is a request for an RfC, so just leave the page alone and wait for an outside opinion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011 and I will henceforth follow his suggestion. I just want to tell you S92, that both versions are disputed anyway ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article's title is disputed the critisism section is disputed the backround section is disputed not the riots and political crisis section.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when is criticism disputed?? (Oh, and, when there are so many reverts on a section it is disputed,too.)--Michael X the White (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Riots

Given that there are some people here who are trying to deny the facts, let me point out that again there were serious riots and clashes today in Patras. These are clearly a continuation of the civil unrest. I hvae not been documenting all of the rioting and demonstrations so it is difficult for me easily to put them on the page. I suppose that they were not reported internationally, so all the editors here who rely on the foreign press will deny it. It is up to Greek residents here to point out these facts, and not allow certain viewpoints to be manufactured and/or imposed. Xenos2008 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• "I suppose that they were not reported internationally" Yes, they have. I saw it on television, here in Portugal. Maziotis (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• There is a difference between what happened and what is encyclopedic. It would not be encyclopedic to document every single instance of "unrest" in Greece from now until the end of time. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I don't think that is in dispute. Maziotis (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dissolution of the December 13th protest in front of the Parliament

I would like to note that: The dissolution of the peaceful demonstration (which lasted from Sat. 13th until the early hours of Sunday the 14th) was attempted with the use of tear gas, and excessive force by the police against the participants. Also, there was no firebombing or any kind of violent response against the police by the participants. Except for verbal attacks. I strongly oppose the content of this sentence: "Despite the fact that the protest in front of the Greek parliament was relatively peaceful, the riot police attempted to dissolve it at 1:30 (local time) by using tear gas, at which point some of the protesters responded with firebombing and violence."

It was not just "relatively peaceful". Not a single object was thrown against the riot police. And the speculation that the protestors responded with firebombing(!!!) and violence is not supported by any of the cited sources. Plus, I was there, I know perfectly well what went on.

I would like to correct that paragraph. But I would like to know if there are any other sources that are positive about that peculiar firebombing (except my own five senses) that I should take into consideration.

Moreover, we were hunted down like animals for 3 whole hours from Syntagma Square down to Omonoia Square, treated with both physical and verbal violence by the riot police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potmos (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the sources do not show firebombing in that part (from a very rapid reading I did). I'll check it out again. However, we can't use you being there as a source, either. About the hunting down, etc., even if we had sources it wouldn't be something special or notable.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course I didn't mean to add more details to that incident. I merely emphasized what happened, for the sake of conversation. Should that "firebombing" thing be omitted, since it's not reported by any source?Potmos (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there should be a rephrase in that. I don't know what the German source says, however, and I think we should leave this a while longer, in case someone with a source emerges, or even the one who added the info there.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The German source in question ([1]) makes it clear that there was no connection between the firebombing (of a police station) and the peaceful protest (in front of Parliament and at the place the boy was shot). I've no idea what the two Greek refs in that sentence say. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kouneva and second name

Two observations:

1. The name of the second police officer is not mentioned. Should it be mentioned?
2. Konstantina Kouneva is not being mentioned, and obviously she should. You can paste this into the article:

'''Konstantina Kouneva''' is a 44-year old [[Bulgarian people|Bulgarian]] legal [[immigrant]] in [[Greece]] and [[trade union|unionist]] working as a [[cleaning lady]] for the [[Oikomet]] company (providing services to [[ISAP]], among other clients) who was attacked with [[sulfuric acid]] (vitriol) on [[22 December]] [[2008]],<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/30/europe/EU-Bulgaria-Greece-Acid-Attack.php IHT]</ref> an event which sparked protests<ref>[http://www.iww.org.au/node/617 IWW]</ref> and clashes with the [[Greek police]] during [[2008 civil unrest in Greece|the Dekemvriana events]].<ref>[http://libcom.org/news/bosses-attack-militant-cleaners-syndicalist-vitriolic-acid-athens-protest-march-occupation- libcom]</ref> DaffyMouse (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the article should say that the events have been known to many people as the dekemvriana in reference to the old Dekemvriana, and probably also link to the old Dekemvriana for disambiguation. DaffyMouse (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia POV policy, WP:NPOV. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Konstantina Kouneva is not connected to the situation that this article describes. Also the dekemvriana approach is a matter of POV.Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a moment here. Following Michael IX the White's suggestion & ensuing discussion, Konstantina Kouneva's biography was deleted based on Wikipedia's notability policy WP:ONEEVENT. That particular policy very succinctly advises contributors to 'cover the event, not the person' - I agree that Kouneva is not notable enough out of context (context being the sulphuric acid attack against her), but the event itself might prove of particular interest (so far, it sparked a large solidarity movement inside Greece & some notable reactions outside it). At any rate, the result of the discussion on Kouneva's bio is that the bio page redirects to the current article - so how is it possible that user Sadbuttrue92 writes 'Konstantina Kouneva is not connected to the situation that this article describes'? If the bio redirects to the current page, then certainly this must be the place for Kouneva to be mentioned?!? This looks like a vicious circle to me; my excuses if I'm just being thick.Athenray (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The attack is not connected with the episodes following the death of the student, it's only connection is that it happened during the December's riots and demonstrations of solidarity were made in January. If the only connection there is is time period then we might as well add these to the article:

• http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=107849
• http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=103574
• http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=108549
• http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=108660

the riots and demonstrations-protests included in the article are there as a continuity of the events following Alexis death. the decision to redirect Kouneva's name to this page was made by an editor who either didn't care enough or didn't have enough time to do some research. It(the decision) probably will be challenged at some point. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally

It's been quite a while with no edits or replies. It now seems consensus is supporting 2008 Greek riots. --Michael X the White (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So, will we rename it??

I still support the rename, but I feel that there have probably been no more edits by the other two because we haven't changed anything in a while to cause them to be mad. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There were more than two editors. And I still think some people in here need to work on distinguishing civil unrest from civil war or societal collapse. It was already explained at length how the riots were only one form of the many types of events that took place in Greece, as part of a larger social phenomenon. If there is a new argument to me made, please address it here. There was no consensus to change. Maziotis (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so it should go back to "2008 Greek riots" where it was in the first place. There were only 2 vocal (reply to everything with an irrelevant paragraph) people involved in the discussion is what i meant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the last rename was illegal? I don’t understand that. Anyway, I believe there were more than two people arguing against renaming again to "greek riots". You also have to keep in mind that people haven't exactly changed their minds regarding the name of the article, from the initial name. The change of name came as the event progressed.

Why exactly do you feel the name of the article should change? It doesn't even make sense, since there are riots every year in Greece. If it were in Portugal, for example, the riots would be news by itself. So, I think the event itself calls for "civil unrest", due to the fact that it was an extraordinary case of social disturbance, parallel to the riots. You have to remember that this article is also about the peaceful protests, involving a significant part of the population. Maziotis (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is some sort of a joke, to continue with the claim that there are no riots. There was major rioting in the centre of Athens yesterday!! 79.130.56.62 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) And, yes, I agree with Maziotis: it is important to distinguish the usual riots from the recent situation. 79.130.56.62 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No no no, do not be mistaken. This is not about the "peaceful protests" etc., this is about the riots. What was done here is both title and context have been changed. It was not giving a more appropriate title in the same article, it was writing a new article based on the previous one. The change did not come as the events progressed, it came as we went for holidays and there was a notice about that. And there were many more than 2 or 3 people against civil unrest. Riots do happen every year in Greece and that is why there is a year in front of the title. It is just that the other riots are not notable. They do not interest us. Thank you anyway for proving that people supporting civil unrest have lost the scope of the article.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

16:42, 26 December 2008 Hiberniantears (Talk | contribs) (41 bytes)(moved 2008 Greek riots to 2008 civil unrest in Greece: Moving per discussion and three day waiting period on talk page, in line with naming convention of 2005 civil unrest in France)

This article does include the peaceful protests, and if it didn't, it should. The reason why we "don't care about the other riots", the reason why the other riots "don't interest us", is because the other riots are not involved in civil unrest. This is what makes this event special and deserving of an article. Otherwise, it would be like any other anarchist riots in Greece. The fact that a dozen of government officials were fired and a significant part of the population were involved in protests is connected to the death of Alexandros and the consequent events. The article is about the overall social disturbance following the shooting case. Maziotis (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you present us the move log?? It is pretty useless I think. What makes the event special is the length and the extent. We haven't had riots lasting more than 2 days. That is one thing. The other is the enormous coverage by western press (BBC,CNN). Look, it is pretty clear that consensus was reached at least for the time and that is 2008. But I think you could keep most of the information you've added in a new "Aftermath" section.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I presented the log in response to your comment about sneaking changes in the holidays. The date and the reason are given in the log. As for what makes the event special, it seems you have just described a state of civil unrest. Also, you have to take into consideration the other events that are associated with the riots and that are notable by themselves. This led many people to address the whole event as a case of "social disturbance" or "civil unrest". Please address my arguments directly. Maziotis (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about sneaking! But a consensus with lots of people absent is not a real consensus. Silence implies consent but not absence. That's what I'm talking about. The events that came after the rots are connected (to a certain extent) with them, but are not notable by themselves. They are "business as usual" and that is why they should be in an aftermath section (and consensus against "2008-2009" supports that). Now the evnts that took place the same time with the riots are reactions to the boy's demise, but they do not form civil unrest (or whatever name you give to it) and they are not notable by themselves. The riots caused all the trouble and the riots were noticed, when the demonstrations do for sure not have the same weight as the riots.

It is "funny" how you use the word "please" in the same section you personally attack me.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well.... I agree that the events that happened after the event are not a part of the event (?!) ....but, I guess the issue here is to define what is the "event". Again, people protesting in the streets peacefully can be a significant part of a case of civil unrest. Please look for the article civil unrest. We are not talking about institutions breaking down, but merely not running as usual. I think you are using a definition for unrest that is unnecessarily reflecting a state of more disturbance than what it really is. We are not talking about civil war or societal collapse. We are talking about social disturbance on many levels, just like what happened in France. The fact the riots spread through the country, means that the news are not the "riots" individually, but a social phenomenon that is usually addressed as a whole with the term "civil unrest", just like the news sources suggest.

Again, I still don't get what you want to say about the change of name. Are you saying that we need to revert it on the basis that it was illegal? Otherwise, I believe we are dealing with a consensus like any other. As soon as we have consensus for a different name, we will change to that, like at any other time.

Please be more clear on how I have insulted you, because that was certainly not my wish. Maziotis (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Political motivation"?

I'm not reffering to this being civil unrest or not (even if I see no civil unrest there) but what I am saying here is that the riots were notable and well known world-wide and that this is why we wrote the article: to talk about the riots. Certainly, there are some demonstrations tied to them and they are mentioned in the article. But the focus of the article is the riots. Also, while "civil unrest" can be challenged (and actually does sound heavy, as many others have said), the riots cannot be challenged. They occured; period. Civil unrest is a term too vague for this. Another factor that would help would be the consensus of the end date (Late December). This shows that the events we're focusing on are the riots that took place every night for 2-3 weeks in December and not all the rest. What you argue is civil unrest, based on your arguments continued till mid-January, while consensus leads us to December.

About the change, I do not say that it should be changed because it was not a real consensus. I say that it should remain as it is only if there is a strong consensus supporting "civil unrest".--Michael X the White (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is a primary example on how people sometimes try to read what the "people want to say" by looking at voting polls, and than lose the ideas in the process. Some people who argued for the name of the article to be "2008" and not "2008-2009" actually said that they believed that the event went into 2009, but since it didn't take much of this year, it would suffice to put the beginning year. We have to find consensus on issue by issue. In this case, it would be wrong to synthesize what the several consensus, reached on the several issues, meant. This is not black and white. And at this time, I don't see consensus that finds "civil unrest" to be as heavy as you say it is.

I disagree with you that the "Greek riots" are all that it happened, and it would be simply a false statement to leave it at that. Your threat about gray lines in social issues should not scare us to back at every time. Otherwise, this whole encyclopedia would be dedicated to Physics and Math. What about the fact that every year there are instances of “riots” in Greece. Maybe this means that the definition of “riots” should be put into consideration when we are dealing with events happening in Greece. Someone could perhaps argue that it is the shooting, and only the shooting that is certain.

Did you actually read the article on “civil unrest”, or any other that gives you a sense of what it means in English language? Personally, I have to admit that as a non-native English speaker I am not that all comfortable to make a final call.

I didn’t get you quote on “political motivation”. Maziotis (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS:Oh, and in here absence is silence. The consensus is formed with the editors who come to be present at the time. We are not a fixed committee about which we can determine if someone abstains to vote or is not present. When, in policy, wikipedia makes a reference to silence in consensus, it is referring to absence. Otherwise, what else? There are no holidays on wikipedia. I put the log so we could have the date and reason present during our discussion.Maziotis (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. I remind you that there was a notice about many people being absent and not agreeing with "civil unrest". When Wikipedia makes reference to silence in consensus, it is referring to silence. As in "I do not react" <=> "I agree". Otherwise minorities would be ruling Wikipedia when the others are absent.

The people who rule wikipedia are the ones who are present at the time. They are always a minority. Where are the other 6,000,000,000 of people? I think you missed my point entirely. You can come here and talk about how you will be leaving for the next year, but the articles will change without you, and when you come back your power of influence will follow the same rules as ever. You are not a part of any committee. That notice about your holidays would be nothing but a threat of future influence. How do you think what you say applies different in the situation that we are discussing? Do you think we should revert it because you personally know of 3 guys who didn't want this revert while they were spending vacation away from a computer? Absence is silence. There is no one but the ones who participate and the unknown who are silent. We don't know who is present or not, so we can't even distinguish the two. Maziotis (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, and again no. :) A year is not 15 days. Someone who says they're still participating but can't be there for a few days is not silent. They just do not have time to discuss it right now.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a year or 15 days. You cannot voice other users. The rules regarding consensus are still the same. Those people, and others, can come and change consensus, but there are no "holidays decisions don't count" periods. That's why I say that absense is silence. Only those who participate make the consensus. It's ridiculous that you keep on insisting about that difference, as if those people are being silenced from our "fixed" group. People come and go, and the article is runned by the people who act and speak out in here, at the time. Maziotis (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you say that if one day no one in the entire globe entered in Wikipedia but one person, he/she could decide about the entire project??--Michael X the White (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can decide it right now! It's called "being bold". I doubt however it would stick. The fact is that the last change was done within a period of 3 days, and right now there are people (me) opposing your change. I think you need to read wikipedia:consensus to understand how it works. Maziotis (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I understand that in the real world it is necessary to distinguish “absence” from “silence” in a decision making process of a group of people. In wikipedia, the consensus is formed from the people who are present at the time. There is no fixed group. This means that consensus can change either because people can change their mind, or because new people are dealing with the issue. So far, I think what I am saying is established, common sense knowledge about the very nature of wikipedia. I am not discussing if it is right or if it's wrong. What I meant with "absence is silence" was that the reference on "silence", in the consensus gathering guideline, refers to all the people who are not participating in the debate, whether it's because they are not aware of it, or because they can't participate, or because they are not present. So, what we now face in terms of finding a new consensus is the same as ever. There are no "illegal" time zones. You are inventing the concept of “ill-formed consensus” in the new argument section. If there are people who are interested and opposed to this consensus, they have to speak out in order to break silence. As long as they remain silent, they are, as far as consensus working in wikipedia goes, a part of all those who can't or choose not to participate.Maziotis (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Do you really expect to be taken seriously? I think you should check wikipedia:civil and stop wasting other people's time. Maziotis (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, according to the US media, the problem (riots) are over and they moved on to other stories weeks ago. (The don't publish anything about it anymore, didnt actually say its over however). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the event being over is in dispute. Maziotis (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this guy Michael X was always opposed to the renaming and now he thinks he can move it back. The riots continue in Athens, and it is just a lie and POV to insist that they were for a specific period in December. End of discussion and perhaps we should be improving the article instead of this political game that is being openly played by supporters of the government. Xenos2008 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We are definitely dealing with a political motivated POV. I think there was even a mention in this discussion about how calling this event "civil unrest" would hurt the country’s good name and tourism... Maziotis (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I also second this. Bypassing Michael X The White's userpage, which I regret saying offers a good glimpse - & (somewhat) circumstantial evidence - into what his POV might be, & having read a big chunk (but not all) of the discussion above on switching to 'Greek Riots,' I wonder why we're still discussing this. If threats or (what I deem to be) sneaky attempts to change the name persist, I intend to report Michael X The White for advancing his own agenda against existing WP policies. I'm leaving my politics as much out the door as possible when I edit WP, I respectfully ask you to do the same. Also, who came up with the notion that 'riots' is equivalent to 'ταραχές'? 'Ήμουν ταραγμένος' is not equivalent to 'I was being riotous'... Also, 'ηλεκτρομαγνητική διαταραχή' would translate into 'electromagnetic disturbance' (llok it up if you don't know what I'm talking about) - it's impossible for me to fathom how 'διαταραχή -> disturbance' agrees with 'ταραχή -> riot.'Athenray (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

to: Athenray please read this and exercise it if you wish to continue as a good contributor to Wikipedia WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HAR. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. I'd still like to see some answers to the issues I raise, please feel free to comment on them.Athenray (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename request discussion: Riots vs. Civil Unrest?

I don't know how to do this, but I think the title should be edited to say "2008 Civil Unrest in Greece". Titling the page riots would indicate that ONLY riots are happening. Riots ARE happening, but the word riot is a bit of a loaded term (some say "rebellion") and property destruction and clashes with state security forces aren't the only thing that's happening--there are building occupations (such as the occupation of the GSEE by Greek workers), strikes in all sorts of industries and professions, and traditional street marches. My internet is being teh dumbzorz at the moment, but if you google it, you'll find that a majority of Greeks in a nationwide poll last week identified what's going on as a "popular uprising". I'd prefer to title this a popular uprising, but that's still a subjective judgement. Civil Unrest makes more sense. Also, that would bring it inline with Wikipedia anyway--the 2005 riots in the French suburbs is referred to as the "2005 Civil Unrest in France"--and that was 6 weeks of massive car burning. 138.88.194.65 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been going on long enough to use the term "civil unrest" and there are no claims being made with this term. "Riot" is too short-term a concept, I agree. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree we need a title change but maybe something like riots and demonstrations--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree too : this event is far more than just desctructive riots. Yug (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil unrest is more broad a descriptor. It's not just riots and demonstrations, it's strikes and occupations and a lot more. And even those only limit it to the article being *just* about the actions of demonstrators and leaving out things the police and the government are doing and leaving out the larger context. Civil unrest lets you describe the full spectrum of what's going on. And it brings it in-line with other wiki articles on similar topics. It's def bigger than just calling it riots though. 68.239.82.231 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

THe page is protected against moving, so someone with sysop rights has to to do it. I propose renaming the page: 2008 riots and civil unrest in Greece. Any other suggestions? Xenos2008 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a concern of mine as well. These events have for some time now far surpassed the classification of "riots" and the connotations such a classification brings. I agree that "Civil unrest" is a more appropriate term until further developments are made. Spewns (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 2008 riots and civil unrest in Greece or 2008 civil unrest in Greece. Yug (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

All seems agree for a renaming. Please, an administrator to do it ! : Yug (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree too - adding {{editprotected}} as page is move protected. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The move protection don't means the name should never change. The situation have change, several users agreed that a name change is need. An admin should come and rename the page. Yug (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots is fine. And that is because ti is certainly not unrest. Let me remind you that many demonstrations were anyway p[lanned (GSEE-ADEDY,etc.) So, those demonstrations are not directly connected to the riots. Anyway, the scope of this article is not both the demonstrations and the riots. It's just the riots, that was what the news spoke of and that was the notable "event". That is one thing. Another thing is that if the situation really is ongoing, it is not correct to juge so quickly and change title. And yet, there is another thing. We're entering holiday period and many editors will just not check what's going on here, so there is always the danger of a consensus now to be overruled by one 15 days later. I think that we should wait at least 2 weeks to re-examine this.--Michael X the White (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So one person can block a change that everybody else agrees with? With that attitude, the world would never have progressed from the Garden of Eden. It is not reasonable to say that people who might disagree do not look in here. There are plenty of people who don't edit WP who might disagree: that is irrelevant.. It is not how democratic decisions are made. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said WP is a democracy? If you want a democratic news source, Indymedia is what you're looking for. WP only tells you opinions of the majority, as reported by the mainstream (i.e. pro-establishment) press.--Angdraug (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

THe majority so far have expressed a desire to rename the article, which also is in accordance with mainstream press descriptions. I am talking about one person blocking change: this is just inertia, inability to act, much as the current Greek government behaves. We see the results of such a mentality on the streets of Athens. Also, this is POV: it is clear from the comments above of Michael X that he thinks that the civil unrest is about nothing at all. This is a small minority opinion. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I clicked [edit] and I was about to support 2008 Greek civil unrest (or something), but while I was typing this, the change struck me as a little too much for now. I think Michael's proposal for waiting just a couple of weeks makes sense. We wouldn't want to move this article back and forth. NikoSilver 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest hanging in a while longer before making any moves. This is still a volatile topic, and the article is still rapidly transforming. Given the amount of back and forth that is still going strong on the content end, it would be unwise to either move the article, or release the move protect. It may yet become something bigger than ordinary unrest, or rioting, or it may fade and be regarded simply as a period of riots. I can easily imagine that if I move the page, that I will have a thousand messages on my talk page indicating that I did not move to the best possible name, and then telling me a thousand variations on what the correct name is. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I defer to yet more dissenters. My view is that these things do change meaning over time, but that it has already gone beyond "riots in Greece" when 3 weeks have passed, the range of demonstrators seems to cover Greeks and non-Greeks, students, anarchists, ordinary (older) voters; the range of actions is not limited to a handful of riots; and has also spread across the European continent. Of course, nobody can identify what is the exact meaning or result of any of this, so nobody can find the perfect title for this contemporary phenomenon. That happens with up-to-date reporting, as opposed to more academic historical accounts. It is still not a reason to leave a very limited title, however. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this: If there is no objection, I will move the article to 2008 civil unrest in Greece. However, to give people time to comment, I will do this three days from now (Friday). If there is substantial opposition to a move, I will just leave the status quo in place for the time being, and we can revisit the name of the article when the dust has settled. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have 2005 civil unrest in France, while the French event was not that complex, and never had large social support, nor had large manifestations supporting it with political claims. So, for me, the current Greek event deserve more the title 'civil unrest' that the article 2005 civil unrest in France. Yug (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the main reason for changing it--bringing it in line with other Wikipedia articles and I think Hiberniantears' solution is awesome. 216.15.38.134 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, Hiberniantears. I don't believe that Greek Wikipedians are so busy with Xmas shopping and cooking that they will not look in here over the next 3 days. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be busy, and "unrest" still strikes me as too much for now (although it was me who introduced the term - check section right above). Especially given that the whole fuss has subsided due to the holidays. NikoSilver 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling it fuss when it's entering it's third week and when solidarity actions are breaking out across the world doesn't really fit, lol. From the perspective of proper terminology, "Civil Unrest" is what analysts refer to something like this as. There was a publication by the Strategic Studies Institute in the United States over the past week that referred to events like this as "civil unrest" and with property damage being mixed among television studio takeovers, work place occupations, strikes, rallies, and a teetering government, "civil unrest" is the only real way to talk about this as an historical event with a context and history and timeline. 216.15.38.134 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:Der Blaue Reiter and User:NikoSilver. Thinking of the consequences of renaming the article and what damage it could do to the image of Greece and specifically Athens abroad. Perhaps a POV statement but that's the way I see it... Pel thal (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, as if Greece's reputation after these riots is going to be affected by choice of wording on WP. The tourism industry has already collapsed, I regret to say. Xenos2008 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, since we started joking here, there's definitely gonna be a reason for renaming the article if the riots continue: THE YEAR! NikoSilver 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I notice that the Greek language article is still using a title that describes riots. Since I learned that through Google's language tools, I was wondering if someone could tell me if this is also a discussion on the Greek Wikipedia article. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are brief comments here and there in the talkpage. A brief debate was made between ταραχές/riots and εξέγερση/rise (or unrest), the former prevailed. NikoSilver 20:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I insist on using Greek sources for these (and other) events, I would not support relying on Greek analysis, which is usually very conservative and non-innovative. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that unrest is actually a very "strong" phrase to describe the events also i am suprised to see that the page was renamed so quickly--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While reading the article civil unrest, it seems the definition fits perfectly. Based on what I have been reading in this discussion, I think a lot of people are confusing civil unrest with societal collapse. Maziotis (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil unrest is far from reality and misleading, the former title 'Riots' is fine and clear about the events.Alexikoua (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You should address the arguments put forward in defense of civil unrest, found on several sections. Or at least, make an argument against it. Maziotis (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Documentary

A documentary on the riots/civil unrest has been produced. It can be seen here. Murderbike (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments

These are just the argumeents, it does not mean that they're facts too. This is just to have a more accurate view of what each one is saying.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporting 2008 Greek riots

• All of the sources refer (at least) to the riots
• The riots were the notable event for which this article was written and for which it was ITN
• These riots were more than "business as usual" because they lasted for a little more than 3 weeks
• The riots as "the event" are not doubted by anyone, contrary to "civil unrest"
• Riots is the most common reference for this and the readers will search for "riots" instead of "civil unrest" (Google results are 2,64mn versus 76,4K)
• "riots" is specific, "unrest" is vague and misleading
• Consensus for renaming to "unrest" was not solid when "formed"
• [2]

Supporting Civil unrest"

• It is more than riots, it is civil unrest
• Some sources speak of "civil unrest"
• Please complete this with your arguments

This is such a waste of time, it is no wonder that malakia abounds on WP when the most persistent people just go on and on and on and on... Xenos2008 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that this is the pathway you choose...--Michael X the White (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I could try to fill in the gaps, but then I would be reproducing the whole discussion above. Maziotis (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just bullet point to make things more clear!--Michael X the White (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because you think that you can throw your undestructable argument in just 5 points. I am not persuaded by that. Personally, I think some of your points even count as mine. Why? Well, it is explained in the above discussion. Maziotis (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you do no longer want to talk, do not. We're not obliged to search for your opinions.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a response in the above section 4 hours ago. In fact, I gave you two responses. Clearly, I do want to the discuss. But if you don't provide with any valuable rebuttals, you wont be able to change. This is not last man standing game. Check wiki policies. Maziotis (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This here is not to compare. It is just to help us from reading the entire talk page again. This can be a basis for reaching a consensus. So please co-operate.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you have given up on the section "finally", and the idea that we must consider the last consensus as some sort of illegal agreement, made in a time of official resting? Maziotis (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. But there are more main points to base discussion on.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Look, if you do no longer want to talk, do not." :) Ok, but seriously, if there is anything else about some consensus being retarded and some wikipedians having the power to vote in the name of other "some", I'll get back to you. Maziotis (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for rename formed over the holiday period was formed by 2, maybe 3 editors who haven't actually contributed to the article i think it's the right of other editors to request another rename especially when they are the editors who actually developed and helped create the article. Our stance has remained clear from the beggining of these discussions: the term "Civil Unrest" can only be used to describe the first couple of days of the incidents described in the article. It is therefore logical that the title needs to change to describe exactly what the article includes which is the Riots and the Protests that took place after the unfortunate death of the student. It is irrational to form a small consensus of people who did not contribute to the article, change the article's title and then expect this not to be challenged. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, no one is disputing the fact that the title can be disputed. But there is no special "vote" for writers. There are no "votes" at all. Read wikipedia:consensus. I disagree with you that calling this article "riots and protesting" would be more complete in covering the notable event in question. "Civil Unrest" is the expression that best fits to describe the overall period of December in Greece that made this article worthy of an entry. It describes the general environment, with the protests, riots, vandalism, government officials fired etc... From what I've been reading on the subject, I don't see how this expression is "excessive" in any way. We are not talking about revolutions and civil wars, just a state of some social disturbance. Calling this article in reference to "the riots in Greece" would be to limited. It would be like having a meteor hit the earth near a shore, and someone wanting to write an article about "The Flood" in littoral cities. Maziotis (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so we have established that the title is disputed and that the editors have every right to dispute it. So can we start forming a consensus pro or against the title change?

The way i see it the term civil unrest can discribe a situation where all the factors you describe take place i.e. protests, riots, vandalism including social disatisfaction a lack of goverment control over the country etc. etc. but those things didn't take place at the same time (maybe) except for the first 2 days, so "Civil unrest" does not describe the whole article at all. It would be much better if we renamed to riots but i do think we should keep the information about the protests too. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the term "civil unrest" refers to the overall event, namely the riots. The relation to them is that it puts into context why it "didn't last only 2 days as usual", as I've heard it here. You have to understand that "civil unrest" is not an event by itself, such as the "riot", where you would say that "civil unrest" didn't happened most of the time. Civil unrest is just another way of saying "social disturbance" and it includes everything that is being discussed in the article. It makes for a better encyclopedic article, since it puts the "riots that everyone is talking about" in a sociological context. Why there were so many riots, for so long? This takes us to see the country as being in a different state for a period of time. A state that goes beyond the event of the riot as being newsworthy by itself. Maziotis (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we just going to add every single incident of "civil unrest" from now on to the article? It seems like everyday someone adds there was a protest, people were arrested etc. With riots at least we could say it ended, but with the current format, there will never be a set end. Why don't we split the article (its 3x desired length according to wiki-standards) and make the riots page with the shooting, and then a new page about the civil unrest that followed? The article most certainly needs to be split at some point so would this make sense to anyone? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the "civil unrest" didn't follow. Civil unrest was what happened. Till this day, there are still riots being done in the name of Alexis. Some of them are in the "aftermath" section. So, your threat about "we can't decide" doesn't make sense. I think we should end with that sort of threats and really try to find a name that suits the event.

First you think the name is to heavy to describe the events, now it is good to describe what followed? Maziotis (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There can be speculation on whether civil unrest happened or not. However, none could doubt that the riots happened, are the common name for the event, and are notable. Why do you think everyone is threatening? Myself I see that we can decide, if we have not decided yet. --Michael X the White (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that no one can dispute that what happened were the riots, but I dispute that. That is the very issue. I believe the riots are not the event. I believe that the riots are one expression of the civil unrest lived at the end of 2008 in Greece. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy. Maziotis (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What I mean, for the sake of clarity, is that none can seriously doubt that riots took place, when anyone could seriously doubt that the civil unrest took place.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I believe calling the event "riot" is plain wrong. Also, check civil unrest. It is not vague as you claim to be. I can also say that there is no doubt that we had a case of civil unrest in Greece. Maziotis (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do all sources refer to "civil unrest"? And again, I'm back to Google: 2,64mn "2008 Greek riots" results versus 76,2K "2008 civil unrest in Greece" show that everyone knows about the riots and riots is the most common use of "everything" that happened. It is so notable it became a direct choice (when you type "2008 gr" "2008 Greek riots" appears directly as a choice").It also shows tha some refer to it as civil unrest,too. --Michael X the White (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statistically, that only proves that people search more for "greek riots" than "greek civil unrest". I am not disputing that the event of a riot attracks more attention than anything else. That doesn't mean that it would be right to portray the incident with that name. Do you realise that all the people who believe this is a case of civil unrest, will look for pictures with "greek riots"? That argument comes obviously from someone who doesn't have a clue about statistics of this sort. You are just putting up fallacies and semantic arguments, without coming up with a single idea about how this encyclopedic article best defines the event. Maziotis (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually means that there are 2,64mn references wide-web to "2008 Greek riots". It's not what people search for.-Michael X the White (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC

That is what people are looking for. That is why there are so many references. People care about the riots that happened at the end of 2008, as oppose to all the ones that happen every year, month to month. That doesn't mean that we, as an encyclopedia, should identify the event associated with the riots in such a way. Maziotis (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrase is "2.640.000 results for "2008 Greek riots". What does this have to do with what people are looking for? Results means references wide-web. For each website this phrase appears, there is a result.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, 27.600 results appear for the exact phrase "2008 Greek riots", 3 of them being Wikipedia. 243 results for the exact phrase "2008 civil unrest in Greece" 2/3 of them being Wikipedia.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Most people don't use the expression "civil unrest", ever. They are not an encyclopedia. We are. Maziotis (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[3]--Michael X the White (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It’s funny that you point that out to me, because I was coming to post about "naming the event", and making my position clear, when I found that link. I stand by the fact that there are many references to "Greek riots" because naturally that is what people are searching for. That is very clear to me. I would never expect to find more results for "civil unrest". The reality is that most people are simply not called to name this event. People want to know more about those "crazy rock and molotov throwers" and they type “riots” all across the web-page. I was definitely one of them; looking for the 2008 riots in Greece, as oppose to just looking for “riots in Greece”, for previous years. Now, we have the task to speak about what was happening in Greece in the previous month. I believe the issue here is a state of "civil unrest" in Greece, which accounts for all the riots, protests, vandalism, officials being fire and a general sentiment of discontent. That is what this article is about and what a lot of newspapers are also analysing, with respect to that term, "civil unrest". There was a chaotic state of civil order during that month in Greece. The obvious fact that the reality of the "riots" is the most sensationalist of all doesn’t change what the overall event is, and our encyclopaedic duty to represent it.

About your link, I think you missed this part: Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Take notice to the expression "verifiable reliable sources".

Also, as far as choosing a popular name goes, we are not looking for a different, expert name for "riot". We are describing the overall event in Greece, in which the riots were only one side. As you can see from the sources provided by a previous user (Lady 6thofAu), this term is by no means obscure and out-of-touch with the mainstream. This is what the event has been called, and your facts on "internet results" are just a display on social hysteria and sensationalism. Maziotis (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you want to alienate the event to a minority of anarchist rock throwers, to protect your POV that nothing happened other than the irrationality of a small group of people, within one political movement. This to me stands as a part of a clear attempt to re-write history Maziotis (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your right to believe what you want and it's ok. It is also interesting to know about your search (still, google does not show as results how many people are searching for what). And yet, while you believe this was civil unrest, I believe it was only riots. The thing is, the riots are more notable and well known that the "unrest" and we here right about what interests our readers most (otherwise it's DYK and not ITN staff) and what is best known to our readers (for two good examples, check Skanderbeg and Alexander the Great). --Michael X the White (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't respond to any of my arguments. This is yet another "no", even if one more dignified. I understand (since the beginning) what the google results are. I also understand that those results are connected with what the people are searching. You insist, for some reason, on interpreting the "search" in the narrow sense. That is, within google's own search engine.

It is your right to believe what you want and it's ok.

I appreciate that you respect the fact that I disagree with you (?!). The point here is to understand why your solution is better. Maziotis (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This aticle here is way too long and too complicated while it is for a very notable event that was even twice ITN. Now, I will not repeat myself.I propose to go back to 2008 Greek riots because the article was truly just fine before the rename (check it, it truly was!). The rename to civil unrest allowed a lot more information to come in the article and transformed it to this mess. I have listed many reasons supproting renaming back to riots. Now, I think it will also be better for the article to get back to the riots (the most notable thing of all this), greatly decrease the length of the article,by 1) removing irrelevant information (as I did but you reverted me, possibly without checking the changes I made), 2)and make some smaller articles to support this main, central, important article, that must urgently become readable again. I think that "riots" can provide this, when "civil unrest" cannot.

Of course, you can disagree with me, but at least now you can see why I think riots are practically better.Can you now please tell us why you think "unrest" is better? (the same way I did, without repeating yourself)--Michael X the White (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can not repeat yourself, because you haven’t' said anything. I gave you my interpretation on the link you provided, and you never offered any kind of rebuttal. I know that the term "riots" is more widespread than any other. I know everyone is interested in this subject for the riots. All of that was addressed, by me and several other users. I am not the one who is going to repeat myself until you offer some kind of argument. I feel like I am talking to a kid. You don't even understand basic wikipedia policies, judging by the discussion on "consensus and silence". It seems you are under the impression that we are a world of 5 people, and you can speak in the name of both rationality and head-count when others aren't present to speak for themselves. It's ridiculous.

Please don't preach to me about what the article is and was. I was here from day 1. I have already given my reasons, and I am prepared to discuss with someone who is prepared to offer a rebuttal. Maziotis (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly not a way of dispute resolution. Vey well, act as you wish. Consensus is reached with people that at least try to co-operate with others. You do not want to discuss, that's ok.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I wrote? I said, I am HERE to DISCUSS with anyone who is willing to offer a rebutall to my arguments. The same way I am here to offer rebuttals to their arguments. You know, that is how discussion goes, with arguments and rebuttals... I don't understand what gave you the impression that I was leaving. Maziotis (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little troubled by the comment above that 2/3 of the google hits for "civil unrest" come from wikipedia. This as one of the things wikipedia cannot do: make the naming distinction by itself. If the sources say riots, than that is what we must call them per guidelines. See here where it says if there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view. We can't make up a case for "civil unrest" using similar cases to frame an argument, that is called original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I already addressed that. Please read the argument above. We are not making anything up. There are tons of media sources talking about civil unrest and civil disorder. That is the overall event. We are not renaming anything. The "riots" are just a specific expression of the event. Just because the riots are the most mediatic phenomenon of what happen last month, doesn't mean that it is fair to say that this article is exclusively about "riots in Greece".

Just look at the name. It's not "greek riots" because a small group in Anthens decided to make some trouble. It's not "greek riots" because it happen in Athens and not in Paris. It is Greek riots because there were riots all over Greece. Why??? What could explain this??? Well, the sources indicate that the country was in a state of civil unrest, due to a number of factors (the death of Alexis being one of them). Please stop trying to re-write history. Some kids throwing rocks and molotovs for a few days is not a huge international news case as this is, and with the encyclopedic article that this deserves. There is an overall phenomenon that must be addressed.

Please read the discussion above. I addressed all that. Maziotis (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

American media focused mostly on the death of the kid and the riots that followed. I don't recall reading about any "civil unrest" or deeper roots. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I already discussed about what the media mostly covers and what is our policies as an encyclopedia. Is it the sources for "civil unrest" that you are looking for? Lady 6thofAu gave us a list from all major news sources. Just look in a section above. It is a big list of links. You can't miss it. Maziotis (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Search engine test to avoid biased samples. We should be careful in using google as a tool in social sciences. In this case, the definition of the actual event is in dispute. It's not the same case as discussing whether we should call the West Memphis 3, West 3 Memphis, based on popularity or some other rationale.Maziotis (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is where we were discussing the issue of renaiming the article. You should not try to change the name by head-count, on the section below. Please address my arguments. Maziotis (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Due to the continuing disputes on the page and the apparent lack of consensus I have initiated a Request for Comment on this issue. —Nn123645 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resuming discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to "2008 Greek riots" per consensus--Yannismarou (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus, no admin intervention and this is now an RFC, we should resume discussion about renaming. I still think this should be back to 2008 Greek riots, and after the rename, lots of info should be moved to other articles to make this mess readable at last. Reasons to rename, as they have been expressed by those supporting renaming, can be found above.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you keep promoting your own agenda against WP policies & other users' suggestions, I intend to report you. I'm honestly up to here.Athenray (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Rename to "2008 Greek riots". As mentioned in the previous discussion, "riots" is the massively more popular way to refer to the events according to Google, and WP policy is to use the common English name for article titles (cf United States vs. United States of America). Call a spade a spade. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Rename per discussion above. "Call a spade a spade" argument was addressed (about twenty times) Maziotis (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a ton of edits with no replies. Clearly the discussion above shows a lack of contribution by those who want to rename the article. This is getting very tiresome... I wonder if there are rules in wikipedia to protect information from wear off tactic users. I am not going to ask for rebutalls anymore. Maziotis (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • About the above strike: Please read the discussion above. We have discussed why this isn't a case like United States vs United States of America. I am familiar with that case, and I don't think that this is the same. Perhaps you can shed some light on the subject. We are still waiting for a rebutall.Maziotis (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename to "2008 Greek riots". On the provision that the article will contain all the information that it has right now about the protests and reactions in Greece. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename. And I agree that the most vital information abouy events in Greece must remain. This discussion has been going on till Archive 1, and my views (and of those supporting rename) are summarised in the section above.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename. This article is about the riots, that is how it started and how it should remain. All of the civil unrest events are the aftermath of the riots and the shooting. It seems that wiki is also the only source of this current name, meaning it was conjured by original research as opposed to the most common term, which one cannot deny, is the Greek riots. If there is not enough support to rename this article, I would propose a split, with a new article about solely the shooting and the riots with this "civil unrest" page serving as the aftermath of those events. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~
  • Please read civil unrest, or any other source, to define the term. It seems that you don't understand what it means when you claim that civil unrest came after the riots. Also, there are many sources for "civil unrest", contrary to what you are saying. I already told you many times. Please address something. Maziotis (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think you know how this works. We all state out opinions and then someone unrelated weighs the arguments and comes to a just conclusion. Please do not try to respond here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I do. I believe it is common to comment on other people's arguments, besides stating the reasons for your own vote. Particularly, I have the right to point out that there is a discussion above this section that was simply ignored after I have offered a rebuttal to your argument. I don’t think it is right to just let enough time pass, and then open up a new section every time you think you have things going your way. We have a discussion above that was far from over. Maziotis (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I point out that WP:NAME essentially says to use the most recognizable name regardless of what is "technically correct" (e.g. United States, not United States of America). Google News for "Greek riots" in 2008 gives 2670 results, versus only 218 for "Greek civil unrest" in 2008. Just injecting some relevant data. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, thank you. The user Michael already pointed that out. We discussed that in the above section. Essentially, the riots are the most recognizable part of the event, but, according to many sources, there was a state of civil disorder in Greece that month. Being that the overall event that encompasses the riots, we should have an article giving the full cover on the event (riots, vandalism, government fires, peaceful protests, and other social signs of discontent). We have many sources for this.[4] Please read just the above section. It is not very long.[5]

So, basically the issue here is not just what to name the event, but how to define it. That is why I believe that you cannot compare this to the case of the United States, and why I think we are dealing with a problem of POV. Some users want to pretend that what happened in December 2008 was the cause of some anarchists because of a kid being shot. Most sources don't point to that. Most sources do like to talk about molotov-throwing riots, but that is another issue. I think that this is a clear case in which wikipedia has to draw the line as an encyclopedia, and make the distinction that some news tabloids can't. Maziotis (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The way of doing that however is not taking over the article that was based solely on the riots, but making a new page dedicated to the "civil unrest". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. I do not oppose the creation (or existence) of an article that is exclusively dedicated to the riots in Greece. The problem is that you don't seem to understand the meaning of the expression "civil unrest". All the reports on strikes, government firings, peaceful protests and other signs of social discontent, along with a brief description of the riots, belong to this article. Maziotis (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They belong in the new article that will be made for the civil unrest, where this article will be trimmed back down and moved back to focus on the riots. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems kind of childish to adopt a "we were here first" attitude regarding who creates the "new article". If the overall event is “civil unrest”, and most of the information in this article belongs to that subject, then obviously we need to take some of the information from the riots, to expand on that singular topic. The basis on which we determine the borders of the subjects is related to the content itself; not who started what, and what he wants to see together. It would be pointless to move this article to “Greek riots”, so then we could create a “civil unrest” article, and move back again almost the entire article to that entry. It is the borders of the subject that I believe we two are not in agreement. Maziotis (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support rename. Civil unrest is a completely different thing. What happened were extended riots.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename. Originally I was present in the first renaming of the article to its present title, and I did not object mostly because the riots were still ongoing and there were sources at the time mentioning "unrest". The riots a re over some months now, and having a cooler head, plus seeing the volume of sources calling them simply as "riots", I have decided to give my support to this rename. NikoSilver 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename. I sometimes actually agree with Niko and Yannis on something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's not get used to it right now, and spoil our recent habits.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support rename. Neither the composition of the rioters nor their numbers justify the characterisation civil unrest.--Avg (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shall we pack it up and move it? This debate has been going on for ages, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No objection by me. Maybe archive this discussion as well so we can move on. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to check: did we say "2008 Greek riots" or "2008 riots in Greece"? I think the first of these was where it was originally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And what about the arguments above, should we just ignore them and have a head count? We can always start a new debate later on if things don't go our way. Maziotis (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what about them. They have apparently failed to convince their audience. That's what. It happens, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Did you read Grk1011's response. My "audience" was one person for a long time (Michael). It is very sad when we hear an administrator in wikipedia talking about leaving a wikipedian talking to a wall while a group of users does a head count between them, after two months with no response. This is not how wikipedia works. We are not a committee, trying to convince each other for final votes. Maziotis (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maziotis, you seem to want to prescribe that it was a "civil unrest" and not "riots", as most of the world is referring to it. In Wikipedia, description of a naming takes precedence over prescription. If people refer to it as riots, then riots it is. Moreover, and this is my own view, this is exactly what is was, riots. Civil unrest is of a totally different scale.--Avg (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We have many sources to "civil unrest". In fact, I believe that all sources refer to the event as "civil unrest". The fact that people like to talk about the riots dosen't change anything. That is the more sensationalist aspect of what happened. But what happened wasn't about a few "anarchists" throwing rocks. We should address the issue as an encyclopedia, and not just leave a note here about violence, like all the tabloids did.

We have discussed all of this. There was a time when we were three people arguing against one, for this name. I suppose I should try to sneak later on and do my own head count with a group of people. Sad, sad, sad... Maziotis (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in one thing, Wikipedia has systemic flaws that prohibit it from acting like a proper encyclopaedia. So unfortunately, we have to resort to current policies. It seems currently Wikipedia favors common usage, so this has to be it.--Avg (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is common usage, for the reasons I have just explained. A good example of a precedent would be, 2005 civil unrest in France. I hope you take the time to consider the reasons why you support this name change. For now, I have no doubt that an administrator and a group of Greeks can do whatever they want with this article. But for a long time this was explicitly about a right-wing user openly wanting to cover up how the events of last December played on government rule. I think it's important for you to think this through, because this is about one of the most fundamental principles of a good, socially responsible encyclopedia - it's neutrality. Maziotis (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad to see that it doesn't mean anything. Maziotis (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this discussion found "2008 Greek riots" to be the most neutral. Your view is not defacto correct. You win some you lose some. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to keep the discussion going. The problem is that my arguments and the arguments of those who believe this name has been pov-pushed have not been addressed. So, I don't think this discussion has in fact found "2008 greek riots" more neutral. Also, please don't forget that "consensus is not in numbers" and "consensus can change". I hope that if I edit here again, it is to respond to an argument about a topic. Maziotis (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut Perf, I believe it was "2008 Greek riots". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split?

I hope I am not posting this in the wrong place but by following the arguments around the issue it seems obvious to me that two separate articles supporting the two terms could coexist with reference to each other. I too believe that riot is too narrow and negative term for what took place, while civil unrest is too broad but inclusive of long term sporadic rioting. I sincerely have hoped for "rioting" to be diminished while civil unrest would continue as the reasons of the spark of the situation were not altered or addressed in any way. This means that an other life can be lost only to restart the cycle till it wears off; meaning more 15 year olds would be shot dead and it would be acceptable collateral damage to the continuation of the police state. Zerogara (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed that possibility, just before the final vote count. I suppose the problem is in determining which goes where, since there are certainly many sources to use in both. I have never opposed an existence of a "2008 greek riots" article. The ridiculous thing is if we now open up a "civil unrest" only to cut/paste most of the information from here. It would have been easier to start a "2008 riots" from scratch. Maziotis (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to highlight the almost certainty that we will have two WP:POVFORKs this way and I'm certainly against splitting the article.--Avg (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not italian

The banners read resistencia which is not italian (would be resistenza) but spanish. The article quoted as source also gets this wrong. -- 80.187.147.124 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 protests

maybe add a section about the protests that turned to rioting on the anniversary of the shooting. these protests and riots are currently ongoing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.198.40 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Patronizing title

They are violent protests. Calling them riots is borderline racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.254.99 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be renamed to 2008 civil unrest in Greece just like other articles. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.51.21 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much of the article reads like PR material for the Greek government and the Greek media. Anyone involved with Indymedia and other alternative information networks were able to learn pretty quickly how biased the Greek mainstream media were in favour of the police, initially reporting every lies the two officers used to justify their actions, until a youtube video was released which showed the officers weren't attack by a gang of youths. It was known one Greek broadcast TV station doctored that footage by adding sounds of bottles breaking to aid the police defence. And, also, there was no mention, explicitly, of the role the Golden Dawn played in attacking demonstrations violently, often with support of the police. There were photos taken that show members of the far-right organisation standing among the ranks of riots police, unimpeded after they were photographed standing on a rooftop throwing rocks at demonstrators.---58.169.225.27 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"borderline racist" I am pretty sure you aren't really aware of what the word "racist" means... 194.219.210.36 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 Greek riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081214213400/http://www.welt.de:80/english-news/article2855514/Alex-Grigoropoulos.html to http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2855514/Alex-Grigoropoulos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928112227/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27briefs-3ATTACKSINPR_BRF.html?ref=europe to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27briefs-3ATTACKSINPR_BRF.html?ref=europe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Greek riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217020053/http://www.amnesty.org.gr:80/news/2008-12-09-1.htm to http://www.amnesty.org.gr/news/2008-12-09-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217235250/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/europe/articles/2008/12/15/protest_staged_outside_greek_court_rallies_planned/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/12/15/protest_staged_outside_greek_court_rallies_planned/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116013324/http://chiapas.indymedia.org:80/article_160916 to http://chiapas.indymedia.org/article_160916

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2008 Greek riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120513121719/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/460188271.html?dids=460188271:460188271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+11%2C+1991&author=(REUTER-AP)&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=4+die+as+students+battle+Greek+police to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/460188271.html?dids=460188271:460188271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+11%2C+1991&author=(REUTER-AP)&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=4+die+as+students+battle+Greek+police
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130224170521/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hTkpBkPWHEdAsbmME9we-8wkJ3jw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hTkpBkPWHEdAsbmME9we-8wkJ3jw
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090207192516/http://www.forbes.com:80/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/12/21/afx5848700.html to http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/12/21/afx5848700.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120213143911/http://www.e-tipos.com/newsitem?id=68651 to http://www.e-tipos.com/newsitem?id=68651
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130224170525/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h688jFLiOpxrAcGDh_g8yfHC-2gAD95GVP2G0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h688jFLiOpxrAcGDh_g8yfHC-2gAD95GVP2G0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130224170542/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDfL_jkXO9MIrZZs53ki3ncjQcMQD9CDR4GG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDfL_jkXO9MIrZZs53ki3ncjQcMQD9CDR4GG0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523163658/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081218/tpl-greek-riots-to-derail-vital-economic-39349ed.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081218/tpl-greek-riots-to-derail-vital-economic-39349ed.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.