Talk:Battle of Meligalas

Southeastern Greece?

I don't see how Meligalas can be considered to be in southeastern Greece when it's in the southwest of the Peloponnese, which isn't to the east of the rest of Greece, even if one excludes all the islands. --184.248.4.100 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Constantine ✍ 08:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For personal reasons

The article says that in addition to military leaders being executed, others were too, for personal reasons. Can we provide a source for the 'personal reasons' part? Thirdstream (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There are references already there. #17 and #86 cover this part. --Constantine ✍ 12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the term "massacre of Meligalas"

The event is often called "massacre of Meligalas" in english and other european languages, and in greek (Σφαγή του Μελιγαλά), and by Greeks writing in english. These terms do not contradict each other, as both happened. However, it was not only a battle because many victims were civilians, and even children.

User:Ιπποκράτης2020 repeatedly deletes sources mentioning "massacre", either with no explanation or with the false excuse that the source "are not reliable". The deleted sources are the following (I omit the talk of Mr. Hogg at the UK Parliament in 1944).

• DH Close · 2012 — Schism in Greek society under Axis occupation: an interpretation. Modern Greek Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 1 (1993), p. 1. "According to convincing sources, about

1,800 people were massacred by ELAS at Meligala".

• Elaine Thomopoulos, The History of Greece, ABC-CLIO, 2012 p. 204: (Contents) "Meligalas massacre by ELAS, [p.] 123"
• STARBUCK, KATHRYN. “SINGING FOR PATRICK LEIGH FERMOR.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 122, no. 4, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014, pp. 664–69 (p. 668): "my father's family being slaughtered by the Nazis in the massacre of Miligala on September 12, 1944". Here the mistake is "Nazis" instead of "ELAS". It is clear that the Germans had departed from the area a week ago. The phrase is historically inaccurate (maybe the person who talks really thinks that the massacre was executed by the Germans) but the term exists and cannot refer to anything else.
• Iakovos Anyfantakis, "Patterns of recollection and historical testimony in Thanasis Valtinos' Orthokosta", Hellenic Studies, Volume 18, No 1, 2010, p. 132: "... there is the use of the massacre of Meligalas, the battle of Athens ...". Here the author interestingly put side-by-side as equally understandable the titles of two major events of 1944.

May I remind that the title of an event is not necessarily the result of historical investigation, and any discussion of its accuracy is off topic. What it matters in WP articles is that the title is used, even by a minority of authors.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The whole issue with this particular contribution is the fact that none of the provided sources utilize the term "Massacre of Meligalas" . This was discussed extensively in the History of the article and user Skylax30, when questioned about the bad quality of his sources said that "Some of the sources may be discussable, but in the history of the revisions" , changing his narrative of "reliable sources using the term Massacre of Meligalas".

If we do an extensive analysis of his sources provided in his edit we find that

# Source n.3. states that people were MASSACRED at meligalas. 
# Source n.4 is a dialogue in the british parliament and it is completely irrelevant, much less a reliable source
# Source n.5 States that "his family was massacred by the NAZIS" and the word "Meligalas" is nowhere to be found
# Source n.6 is A greek author with 0 expertise on the subject 

The new book he apparently provided , by Greek Author Elaine Thomopoulos , comes from an author with a total of 0 citations and has no expertise on the subject whatsoever. User skylax30 claims that However, it was not only a battle because many victims were civilians, and even children. Can you provide a reliable secondary source for the children part?

On top of that, the same user claims that the Greek wikipedia suffers from "Made in Greece Stalinist agiography" (Greek: Made in Greece σταλινική αγιογραφία,final sentence of the 2nd paragraph), claims that a communist conspiracy controls the Greek Wiki, hence his contributions are not allowed. It is the most clear and pure form of vandalism combined with POV , and it should be regarded as such . Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, read the quotes above. You may see clearly the term in question. The rest are irrelevant here, including the personal political characterizations against me and another user, in greek. Also, relax and use your signature.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As i said before , i read them ONE BY ONE. NONE are accetable. You have no issue of putting a book from a completely anonymous author, but you want to do a complete analysis of Meyers sources because it doesnt fit your ideological narrative. Can you quote the political characterization that i used? The only thing i quoted was the term "stalinist agiography" that you coined 4 years ago. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And before you say about the Anyfantakis post-doc he says and i quote presented first and the narrators’ earlier decision is reported in the story as its result. In other cases, certain events are falsely chronologized to reinforce the desired scenario. In addition to the above, there is the use of the massacre of Meligalas[referring specifically to the executions and not to the event as a whole], the battle of Athens in December 1944, and the Civil War to confirm ELAS’ evil ambitions and its decision to execute anyone who might stand in its way. . Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And for Ιπποκράτης2020: Yes, I have seen this page. Yes, I have seen your POV-pushing. And yes, I have already requested a page protection to stop this edit war. The Banner talk 17:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Οk so i am the POV pusher now? Ok The Banner talk . Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

May I remind everybody that the deleted phrase in LEAD says (it can be stated more explicitly) that the Battle of Maligalas is also called massacre of Meligalas. It doesn't say whether this title is justified or not. Therefore, the arguments about the "expertise" of the authors who use it are irrelevant. Does anybody here claim that the therm "massacre of Meligalas" is not used by some authors in various languages? Personally, I claim that I can read the term clearly in many publications of various disciplines.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Μay i remind you that you did not provide a single reliable source justifying your edit? May i remind you that the term massacre is already mentioned in the text? We dont care about what you claim. You failed to provide even a single reliable source. Can you bring a historian which uses the term "massacre of Meligalas" referring to the entire event and not solely to the executions? Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that you don't care discussing, Ippokrates. Just state here if you can see or not the term "massacre of Meligalas" as alternative for the "Battle". Here are some more sources. This French source actually links the "massacre of Meligalas" to the present article, therefore some are aware for the equivalency of the terms and use both because they like so. This is the kind of "reliability" you are asking for. And since the rest of the article does verify this title, you have one reason less to argue against it.

• Slate: "Chaque année, celle-ci commémorait le massacre de Meligala de septembre 1944 ...", with link to WP article.
• Guerras Gregas, by Adeilson Nogueira (in Portuguese), p. 508: "o massacre de Meligalas".--Skylax30 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So , your sources Skylax., are once again , one journalist, and one book by an author with 0 expertise on the subject. Fantastic sources, i would like to see what you would say if i used the same quality of sources for the article on the Communist Party of Greece. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: We need to have multiple RS (Sources linking to WP do not qualify) that are referring to the event as "the massacre of Meligalas". I see none of them. The link from Slate links to WP. The Portuguese book is published by Clube de Autores which is "a major self-publishing platform in Latin America" according to WP article. Cinadon36 12:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

None of these is reliable? [1], [2] The Banner talk 12:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The question is if the term "massacre of Meligalas" or "Meligalas massacre" is used or not in texts that can be encountered by a reader. "Expertise" is irrelevant, especially when nobody disputes that a massacre did happen. Repetition of arguments about "reliable" sources shows either bad faith or ignorance of rules.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is bringing coals to Newcastle. For what it's worth, the word "massacre" already exists in the lead both of the original Greek article, written by then undersigned and reviewed as a FA article in the Greek version of the encyclopedia, and of its English translation by Cplakidas. Were the proposed edit, the one Skylax30 pushes for, to be accepted, the article's lead, in its very first sentence, would speak of "The battle of Meligalas or the massacre of Meligalas [etc]". This, however, would mean that two closely interrelated, but distinct both qualitatively and in time series of actions (i.e. [i] the three-day battle between the resistance army ELAS and the collaborationst Security Battalions from the 13th till the 15th of September 1944 and [ii] the mass executions of prisoners -- mostly Nazi collaborators -- that ensued after the battle with ELAS concluded) are presented as identical. How can this be justified? It is repugnant to logic purely defined. I think that the only thing that one could reasonably propose is for the first instance of the word "massacre" in the lead to be rendered in bold, in acknowledgment of the importance placed by those discussing the events in Meligalas to both the battle and the executions that occurred after the battle had ended. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Attributing my opposition to bad faith seems like a personal attack. I have said there are not enough reliable aourcea naming the battle as massacre. The two sources The Banner is asking me to comment do not seem strong RS to support inclusion.The first one is an article on Golden dawn, not on the battle of Meligalas. It is not a historical article. The second one is a book covering many thousands years of history and therefore suffers from over-generalizing and over summarizing.looks more like a tertiary soyrce rather a secondary one. I do not ditch it, but such a strong claim deems stronger sources. Cinadon36 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Ashmedai 119 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Hi, Ashmedai 119, I'll review this as one of my "two-for-one". Although I'm a member of WP:GOCE, this is actually my first GA review. I'll do some reading and then come back to you, hopefully soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

I'm not going to beat about the bush, or indulge in nit-picking, because this is clearly an exceptional article, let alone a good one. Although the FAC process doesn't appeal to me, I would think this article must stand a very good chance of passing if you are interested in nominating it there. I've listed the six GA criteria below and provided comments.

1. Well written. The prose is fine and there are no spelling, grammar, or syntax issues. As far as I can tell, it complies with the MOS. I like the lead which both introduces and summarises the subject very concisely.
2. WP:V and WP:NOR. The reflist is good and the citations are presented in standard publishing format. No problems in this area and certainly no evidence of original research or copyright issues. While I don't have access to the bulk of your sources, the information is presented in an authoritative and scholarly fashion, so I have no reason at all to doubt their authenticity.
3. Breadth of coverage. It is quite a large article so coverage is quite wide but I would say everything is within scope. Because of the complex background factors and the ensuing massacre, it is necessary to broaden the scope beyond the conflict on 13–15 September. Otherwise, we would not be able to appreciate the big picture and that is a problem I have seen in many articles about battles.
4. Neutral. No problems. The information is presented objectively.
5. Stability. No problems.
6. Images. These are all relevant and, as far as I can tell, there are no issues around using them.

I will promote to WP:GA now. An interesting though sometimes disturbing subject. The article provides a clear insight into WWII events that, sadly, have been largely forgotten. Very well done. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)