Talk:Greece/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

GDP figures

The GDP estimates are for 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.8.106 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Hellenic Republic Ελληνική Δημοκρατία (Greek) Ellinikí Dimokratía
Location of Greece/Archive 17 (dark green) – in Europe (light green & dark grey) – in the European Union (light green)
ISO 3166 code	GR

1. consisten transliterations
141.237.208.164 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

2. adding a globe projection of the map 141.237.208.164 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020 (2)

the current population of greece is 10,423,054. JanKon2010 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉] 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

Infobox: | native_name = {{unbulleted list|{{native name|el|Ελληνική Δημοκρατία|italics=off}}|{{small|{{transl|el|Ellinikí Dimokratía}}}}}} | national_motto = {{lang|el|Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος}}<br />{{transl|el|Elefthería í Thánatos}}<br />("[[Eleftheria i Thanatos|Freedom or Death]]") | national_anthem = {{lang|el|Ύμνος εις την Ελευθερίαν}}<br />{{transl|el|Ímnos is tin Eleftherían}}<br />("[[Hymn to Liberty]]")<div style="display:inline-block;margin-top:0.4em;">{{center|[[File:Greece national anthem.ogg]]}}</div>

Transliteration of Greek to English needs to be consistent. I added an acute accent where needed and fixed words which had vowels that are not pronounced (for instance, eis (εις) -> is etc). --2A02:587:D869:D699:9847:A901:4FCC:9E74 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 2A02:587:D869:D699:9847:A901:4FCC:9E74 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. h 05:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

City states organization

Petition to write "The ancient Greeks were *mainly* organized in city-states". There were also non-city Greeks states, like the Macedonians kingdom or the Epirot kingdoms. LightningLighting (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT the Constitution of Greece

As religion entries, we note all the religions, because Wikipedia is NOT the Constitution of Greece. For the religion explicitly recognized in the Greek we write (official) as we do with other countries. Greece is not superior than other countries to enforce Nazism on Wikipedia because of some Greek users. We add all the information; majority, minority. Nazis love to lie. If Wikipedia is the Greek Constitution someone has to elaborate on it; otherwise we respect the rules of Wikipedia and not the rules of the Constitution of Greece. Even the Constitution of Greece respects other religions (but mostly avoids to be specific). The Greek Constitution doesn't mention that is should be used as an encyclopedic template; thus even according to strict right policy, religious racism isn't constitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4100:f800:f438:e7dc:abb6:ba1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, April 3, 2019 (UTC) |

"Greece is not superior than other countries to enforce Nazism on Wikipedia ". This doesn't sound so good. Do the superior ones enforce Nazism on others? I think that what you said, that minority religions should also be written, is ok, but you said it in a very weird and offending way. Yes, there is an official religion in Greece, like there is an official language, but that doesn't mean that the practice of others is not allowed. And there is a reason for that, mainly the fact that in the Balkans, ethnicity was the same thing with religion until the mid 19th century. Proof of this are facts like the Patriarch of Constantinople being called "National leader of the Christians of the Ottoman empire" and even in the first constitution of Greece, the second article was "All people, Christians and Turks (!!!) are the same in the eyes of the law". So yeah, the official and majority religion should be specified, and under that the minority ones like Catholics and Muslims. Just don't blame everything on Nazism, because you make it sound like something unimportant. LightningLighting (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of Greece

Hello, this is both an invitation for you two to discuss and a notice re edit warring; I would hate to see this turn into something disruptive. @Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης and Danloud:. The status quo is that Greece is described as being in Southeast Europe. Are there reliable sources to refute this? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd certainly say that the "politically considered as part of Western Europe" bit has no business being in the very first sentence. That's an extreme form of WP:Lead fixation. The first sentence is meant to provide a simple, factual description of where this country is, and there can't be any doubt it's about as "Southeast" within Europe as can be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

‡ Єl Cid of Valencia, I appreciate your intervention. Greece is described as Western or Southern, never Southeast, in all international organizations. The "politically being part of Western Europe" has to do with the Cold War, EEC, NATO etc. and dates already from the 1940s. There are literally hundreds of sources on this.

And I wonder, why can Germany be called Northern, Central of Western European, but Greece can't likewise be described accurately? Furthermore, I have never seen Portugal being described as part of Southwestern Europe, only Western or Southern. Why not act likewise in this particular case? Here are some sources backing my edit:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

‡ Єl Cid of Valencia Fut.Perf. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης Greece, geographically, is the southeasternmost state of Europe geographically; it being considered "Western Europe" is a huge stretch. Greece was and still is always considered Southern or Southeastern Europe.

The third source he provided also shows Latvia, Poland, and Hungary as "Western Europe", and Post-Soviet Central Asia as "Eastern Europe". How much sense does that make, and is this a reliable source? Danloud (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is a reliable source for those post-WWII political groupings, sure. It's just that those political groupings are irrelevant to the lead sentence, which is about geography and nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Danloud Again, I invite you to look up the cases of Germany, Italy and Portugal, with their varying geographical descriptions. We shouldn't have double standards. The United Nations is as mainstream a source as anyone can get. And Greece is an idiosyncratic case, especially considering its maritime geography, from the Ionian to the Eastern Mediterranean. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

why the pronunciation of Greece is removed?

Gg1975 (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

MOUNT OLYMPUS IS FAKE!!!!!!

THE GREECIANS BUILDT MOUNT OLYMPUS!!!! MOUNT OLYMPUS IS A STATUUUUUUEEEE!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAPresident01 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Location Should be in Southeast Europe and Asia

There is an omission in the geography section. Clearly some Greek islands are on the Asia side without question, geographically. For example Kastellorizo is smack on the middle of the Turkish riviera. There are many other islands closers to Asia too, even off the west coast of Turkey. Therefore the location of Greece is straddling Europe and Asia. Implying Greece is just in Europe is false and should be fixed. This is an easily verifyable fact and is not geographically debatable. Also it's possible to say Greece in in Eurasia, which is the technical geographic continent. In addition to the islands which are clearly is Asia and definitely not in Europe, a large potion of the remaining Greek islands are also geographically closer to Asia than Europe.

Note this article is written in a European language. It is important not to present bias, and to avoid Eurocentric, colonialist and Euro-supremacist mindsets. This should not be a place for geopolitical power grabs and propoganda.

Hi IP from Pennsylvania, would you like to clarify how it is "Eurocentric", "colonialist" and "Euro-supremacist" to say that Greece is in Europe. If anything, it would be a "geopolitical power grab" to put so much weight on the fact that some of its islands are closer to Asia. Just like it would sound jingoistic to describe the US as a country in North America, the Caribbean and Polynesia. If I referred to the UK as a country in the North Sea, the Iberian Peninsula, the Caribbean, South Atlantic and South Pacific I would probably be laughed at for holding onto the dying embers of an empire. You honestly could have just spoken about physical geography and made a decent point if you didn't cast these aspersions about perfectly normal wording and turn something completely banal into a race issue. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Name. It is possible that their name is derived from the toponym of Graea (Γραία), a city in Boeotia identical with Tanagra according to Pausanias. The word means "old" based on the adjective γραῖα "old (feminine)". 178.29.113.118 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear what changes the IP wants made. The problem is that they provided no source. Had they included a reliable source, I would hope that any editor that is capable would just add the info to the article instead of responding with a boilerplate message about the formatting of the edit request not being flawless.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hellas?

Is the country of Greece called "Hellas" often enough in reliable sources for it to feature in the lead sentence? As far as I can tell, it's an Ancient Greek term, but hardly used in English. It seems to be already treated under the "name" section. I'm fine to put it back though if someone thinks it's important enough to be up there. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As a name for the country as such, in present-day English, it's not more than a rare literary affectation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently there is some nationalist push within Greece to make the rest of the world call the country Hellas and the people Hellenes. They're still angsty over being conquered by the Romans 2,000 years ago, or something. I don't think it's caught on much yet. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

People in greece would always lick grapes before chewing them. 2600:1011:B122:1420:D0B6:5245:462A:5FA3 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In the Bible

This sure llooks out of place and undue for this overview article --Moxy- 22:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The word "Greece" appears in the Bible five times, the word "Greek(s)" when referring to people is found fourteen times and the word "Greek" when referring to the language is found five times. According to the Bible book Acts of the Apostles, the Apostle Paul visited Athens and gave a discourse there.

According to the Bible, the Prophet Daniel predicted that Greece would defeat Persia (iran) and later be broken into four. Many Bible commentaries tie this event to Alexander the Great and the subsequent break up of his empire years after his death among his generals. On the other hand, some Christians, although few, hold the view that Daniel's prediction refers to the "last days" and believe that Greece will defeat Iran in the future.

The Prophet Joel writes about the "sons of Judah and Jerusalem" being "sold" to the "Greeks". The Prophet Zechariah, when referring to "the pronouncement of the word of the Lord" writes: "I will stir up your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece; And I will make you like a warrior’s sword."

References

The Bible is not accepted as a historical source. Also, there is no "bible." It's been repeatedly modified by man and there exists numerous different versions. Nclh77 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Greece is home" - the Balkans are home

History - prehistory section

Claims Greece is home to the Cycladic and Minoan civilizations is misleading at best. Both these civilizations predate any concept of Greece and Greeks by at least a thousand years. The correct way to make the claim is the Balkans are home to the Cycladic and Minoan civilization Nclh77 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This logic is flawed, because even the concept of the Balkans isn't as old. In fact, the Balkans as a concept came much later than Greece's concept. The sentence is using the term "Greece" in a geographical context anyways, and the term "Greece" is geographically much more specific than the term "Balkans" is. Plus to not mention that the Balkan Peninsula doesn't include the Aegean Islands, nor Crete, where these 2 ancient civilizations were based on. Please see Balkans for more info. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If "oldness" is a rule, all of geography needs to be rewritten. I'll change it to something older to follow your rule, "Greece" didn't exist until 1600bce, these civilizations are way older. Greece isn't their home,m it didn't exist when they were around. Nclh77 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Greece is home?"

Apparently "oldness is a criteria for some so let's tighten this up.

"The Aegean is home...."

Greece is not home to the Minoan or Cycladic civilizations. They predate any concept of Greece by thousands of years Nclh77 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Greece is the name given to a geographical area, not only a modern country. This article covers both the geography and history of that area. The area called Greece was home to the Minoan and Cycladic civilizations. There is no problem with that section of text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with Ghmyrtle. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Greece is NOT a geographical area. The Aegean is. You Greek? Nclh77 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to merge Felix QW (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

---

I think we should merge Third Hellenic Republic with this article as they're pretty much about the same entity, thoughts? Great Mercian (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Third Hellenic Republic, indeed is Greece of today. But the political parties ought to go to a more appropriate article i.e. Politics in Greece or perhaps List of political parties in Greece? Because I think they are too much to have these lengthy lists in the article about the country. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note, i think the reason the Third Hellenic Republic exists independently of the article Greece is because there are also Second Hellenic Republic and First Hellenic Republic and each aims to offer a more in depth focus to each period than the main article Greece could ever do. Maybe it is a better idea to not merge them. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be better not to merge the pages. I think the reason "Third Hellenic Republic" has its own article is because it has been used as a historiographical term and it has been given a certain content. The term focuses mainly, but not exclusively, on the era of Metapolitefsi -the transition to democracy after the fall of the military junta- and the events of the following decades. It makes sense as part of the sequence from First, to Second, to Third Hellenic Republic with interventions of the Hellenic Kingdom. Furthermore, the page gathers important information of the era, that can not be all included in the main article of Greece, nor should it be permanently deleted. Piccco (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the points made above. And the current state also matches other articles, such as the Fifth French Republic and France. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be merged, for the reasons mentioned earlier, and I add that the same happens also between the Third Portuguese Republic and Portugal. LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SilentResident, Piccco, TheRealScorpian and LongLivePortugal: a merge would not be appropriate, for the reasons already given. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Current DNA analysis shows the Aegean people's (Cycladic, Minoan, etc) to be Anatolian (Turkey) not Greek

Claims Greece is "home" to the Aegean civilizatiins which predate any concept of Greece is false. There is no cultural or genetic connection nor is "Greece" a recognized landmass area on earth. It's a country.

Either remove the false claim Greece is their home or amend it to a recognized landmass or cultural connection. Nclh77 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from such WP:FRINGE theories, be civil and familiarise yourself with WP policies and understand that WP is written based on reliable and secondary sources. If you don't comply you will be reported. That's a friendly warning. Best Othon I (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Cycladic civilizations in the Aegean are Anatolian genetically. They also predate the earliest Greeks, the Mycenaeans. Ergo, claims Greece is their home on WP are false. One could argue the inverse. Nclh77 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Also have some concerns with your claims a historically factual statement is a "FRINGE" theory. I recall a decade ago being attacked by Greek wiki editors when I edited claims that the Minoans were "early Greeks." Your bias is showing. I will continue to edit this false statement and escalate this beyond your purvue. Nclh77 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Greece is home to the Cycladic civilizations

The Cycladic civilizations in the Aegean are Anatolian genetically. They also predate the earliest Greeks, the Mycenaeans. Ergo, claims Greece is their home on WP are false. One could argue the inverse. Nclh77 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nclh77 197.57.186.255 (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Research

Research suggestions for lost city/states of Greece; Kalpa, 1800’s 2601:47:100:B220:55B5:A9C9:3208:82D7 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Greek = Greece

Greek national football team, .... Greek national basketball team = Greece national football team, .... Greece national basketball team 2603:8000:D300:D0F:E915:416B:7E45:62E3 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Madzag

Oflsege pincere voltam 2001:4C4D:2402:6500:5090:284B:63B3:55EF (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

Greek national football team that should be Greece national football team 2603:8000:D300:D0F:A5A7:174C:24A7:2431 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

Change the population according to new demographic on the first paragraph. SarangeW (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Love

Love you 69.158.135.85 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine

Calling it the Byzantine Empire is a misnomer. That is a much later naming convention that came about to lessen the importance of that portion of the Roman Empire. Anywhere Byzantine is cited it should actually be Roman Empire if the east or Eastern Roman Empire. 2600:8806:2500:131:84A1:B8AA:7D0D:C285 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues within the list of region

Athos is within a category named "autonomous states" while it's a autonomous region. 2A01:E0A:83B:4C80:2528:B66C:94C:9D3E (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

True. Changed it [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

“Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.”

This quote is attributed to Churchill, but as far as I know, it 's might be an urban legend. I noticed the quotation at the article accompanied by a primary source (Greek MFA), and removed it, but Khirurg re-inserted the phrase with three solid RS.[5]. I have access to just one of them, (The Classical Radio Plays By Louis MacNeice, OUP) that does not state definitely that Churchill said such a thing. Instead, I "...Also, Greece sources often refer to a dictum that Churchill may have rendered famous during the war years... [adds the quote]". May I ask Khirurg if he could share the other two RS?

The best Greek fact checking site, ellinika hoaxes, member of International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) , found that the claim that Churchill said such a thing as false.[6]

Happy Ohi Day to everyone. Cinadon36 04:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have found Princes at War: The Bitter Battle Inside Britain's Royal Family in the Darkest Days of WWII

But over their weekly lunches there was little news to bring any comfort.

During the winter the heroism of the Greeks had stood out like a beacon, showing the world that the Axis was not invincible as they drove the Italians out of their country and back into Albania. ‘Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks,’ Churchill declared, as ever finding the right words. Over tea at Coppins, the Kents’ friend Chips Channon was touched at Marina’s ‘pride and pleasure’ in the Greek advance.96 Churchill was keen to support the Greeks and wanted neighbouring Yugoslavia to join

the fight.

I do not feel that this is a RS for the specific sentence in the specific article. Anyway, Ref 96 points to Robert Rhodes James (ed.), The Diaries of Sir Henry Channon, 24 November 1940, p. 276, which I am now looking for. If anyone can help, I would be grateful. Cinadon36 10:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: The entry for the 24th of November 1940 in Henry Channon's diaries contains no mention of the quote attributed to Churchill. It only states that "she [=Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark], on the other hand, is perfect, and it is touching to see her pride and pleasure in the Greek victories". What's more neither the author (Deborah Cadbury) nor the publishing house (PublicAffairs) seem top-notch sources in modern Greek history.

The same holds for Ron Paleski, author of Men of Valour, who is, per this blurb, "an author and historian and among the most recognised authorities on the history of sport, and especially rugby, in New Zealand." Per the same blurb his only "academic study" is The Making of New Zealanders, which is based on his PhD dissertation, not Men of Valour, the book cited above.

Finally, MacNeice, as Cinadon36 stated, states that *Greek sources* (understandably biased in this respect) attribute the quote to Churchill.

It is, thus, extremely dubious where this is a quote of Churchill, and there is no reason this particular quote should be included in the article on Greece, as if it somehow singularly encapsulates a point of paramount importance in the history of Greece. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Ashmedai 119. I will remove the specific quotation. Cinadon36 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023 regarding outdated conscription information.

Change "Mandatory military service is nine months for the Army and one year for the Navy and Air Force." to "Military service is mandatory for a year for all males aged 19 tο 45 regardless of service branch." Dimitrakis81 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done: This is also supported by the existing citation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Οδυσσεια

Οδυσσέας στην αρχή της ενότητας βρίσκεται στην ογυγία και 188.4.76.37 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Συγγνώμη, αλλά δεν καταλαβαίνω τι προσπαθείς να πεις. Feel free to ask any question in English as well, since this is the English Wikipedia! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

New (Final) (17/03/2023) Results for Population (Census 2021)

Population: 10.482.487

[7]

79.103.83.196 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Greece Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Cosmetic split

The aims of purpose this edit are multi-layered: first, splitting up the history section into pre-modern and modern periods is a major aid the reader as it allows the header level of the country's modern history to be raised, which in the new vector layout makes it a main header on the left and allows readers to skip straight to the modern history of the country; secondly, it was an overly long section, and reducing this is better practice with regard to section sizes (as viewable with the function at the top of this talk page) and makes the individual sections more readily digestible; thirdly, the pre-modern history is very broad, incorporating Hellenic colonial history well beyond the borders of modern Greece as well as a segue to the Macedonian expansion into Persia, so "Hellenic" is a suitable broader and more appropriate descriptor for this portion of the history. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Overall, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Personally, I only have a minor concern when it comes to consistency with WikiProject Countries and the rest of country articles, where history is always one section, equally large (some maybe even larger), incorporating history from antiquity to modern era in the same section. Not sure whether this article needs a different layout. As I said, not necessarily a bad idea, this is just a comment. Don't know if other editors have an opinion about this. Piccco (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The over-optimistic WikiProject Countries framework also assumes that country histories can be restrained to just 4 to 6 paragraphs of content, which appears never to be the case. And now Vector 2022 has brought new challenges. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the section title should remain as just "History" as it is consistent with every single other article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Therealscorp1an. Having two separate history sections is not only arbitrary (where do you split?) but also extremely unusual, and not done on any other article as far as I can tell. Khirurg (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Third Hellenic Republic

Should the article Third Hellenic Republic be deleted merged or kept the same. from what I have seen there is no other countries that currently exist that has 2 ''main'' articles Von bismarck (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. there is significant overlap. Cinadon36 12:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This merge proposal has already been suggested a year ago but it was eventually dismissed for the reasons mentioned there. Piccco (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

COMPUTER VIRUS

Somewhere in the summary for the article it is written that the constitution as being revised 3 times since the military junta, however, immediately after, the article presents four dates (years) on which, a constitutional ammendment was made, the latest in 2019. A bug, perhaps? 2001:818:DE97:3200:3D0D:71B7:32AE:9F3E (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: In the Politics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DE97:3200:3D0D:71B7:32AE:9F3E (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Third Hellenic Republic and Tempi rail crash

I feel that inclusion of Tempi rail crash is WP:UNDUE. Third hellenic republic is almost half a century old, currently covered by 4 paragraphs, one of them is Tempi rail crash. Pinging @NikosLikomitros: who added the text [8] Cinadon36 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this is hardly the type of coverage we want in a top-level summary article that has multiple sub-articles. Right now, this event is not even covered in any of the detail articles that this one is meant to be summarizing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 It is the worst rail accident in Greek history, and definitely a very important event of this decade, although it is reality that its long term impact is still to appear. I acknowledge that there is very few text and I am planning to expand the unit with some missing stuff about the third Hellenic Republic, particularly with a very small summary the nineties where there is a lack of text. NikosLikomitros (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly @NikosLikomitros: I 'ld like to thank you for your reply and effort to improve the article. To be honest, I fail to notice improvement. It seems as an attempt to dilute the article so to lower the bar for inclusion. But now, the section seems like a collection of events (apart from the first paragraph- I assume it was created first and then various users added what they deemed important). To be fair, the whole article suffers from the same issue, more or less. Cinadon36 21:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, remove per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. The fact that it didn't have any significant impact in the recent election just proves it. Being the largest frog in the pod isn't enough to be included. (It is the same reason that the 2018 Attica wildfires, the deadliest in Greek history are not mentioned). C messier (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Alright, is anybody finding themselves in disagreement to include the following sentence in the lead of the article? "Over the course of history, different civilizations have lived in various parts of Greece, such as Albanians, Arvanites, Greeks, Ottomans, Vlachs, Pomaks, Slavs and others." AlexBachmann (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Slavs and Pomaks can be combined, did I miss anyone? AlexBachmann (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Albania, you complained that a similar sentence is "misleading" [9]. So why do you want to add a sentence that's "misleading" (according to you) here? Is this some kind of "payback"? By the way, those are not "civilizations". Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's the issue, I have no problem with rewriting it. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence, I am cool with it. Cinadon36 21:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that this proposal by AlexBachmann is a transparent "tit-for-tat" WP:POINT violation, after having fought over a similar sentence at Albania. This behaviour really needs to stop; it's a sign of an extremely unhealthy battleground approach to editing (which is unfortunately all too typical in this topic area.) - That said, the sentence is of poor quality – "civilizations" don't "live" in places. Civilizations aren't living beings. People live in places. And, as pointed out above, these particular ethnic groups mostly don't represent different "civilizations" anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, if the sentence is the issue, I'll have it reformulated. The question here is if the content is convenient for all of us in this talk. I have not fought over the sentence. I argumented that the way it was formulated was misleading. We have it changed now and I would recommend you not to accuse others unless there is crystal clear evidence. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw the "sentence" that I've fought was one word. "Controlled" or "inhabited". AlexBachmann (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As this edit shows [10], it seems you do not understand the meaning of the word "civilization". So addition to the obvious WP:STALK, and the WP:POINT disruption pointed out by Future Perfect at Sunrise, we have WP:CIR issues. What's even worse is that even though the sentence at Albania was changed, here you are still insisting. You are on very thin ice here. Reconsider your aggressive behavior, or very soon you won't be editing these topics anymore. Khirurg (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, Khirurg, if the sentence is a problem, I'll have it reformulated. Feel free to report me after I've reverted one of your edits and you describing it as "obvious WP:Stalk" like you reported Ktrimi and laof2017. Let's see who has to take a break. You mention "WP:CIR" so often when it's you that it refusing to get the point. This is getting into WP:PA. Also, you constantly revert edits even after establishing consensus (Fier). This is sadly exactly what I expected, if we try to add some "Albanian stuff" into the article of Greece you'll be accused of numerous violations. On the other hand the article of Albania mentions Greek, Greece, etc. more than 70 times.AlexBachmann (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Khirurg (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm defending myself against outrageous accusations. No need to name any essays. There is a difference between a dead discussion and a discussion you want to be dead. AlexBachmann (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph on Lead

The following paragraph on the lead:

Over the first hundred years the kingdom of Greece sought its territorial expansion, which was mainly achieved in the early 20th century, during the Balkan Wars and up until the catastrophe of Greece's Asia Minor Campaign in 1922. The short-lived republic that followed, beset by the ramifications of civil strife, came to an end in 1936, when the imposition of a royalist dictatorship inaugurated a long period of authoritarian rule, marked by military occupation during World War II, civil war and military dictatorship. Greece achieved record economic growth from 1950 through the 1970s, allowing it to join the ranks of developed nations. Democracy was restored in 1974–75, and Greece has been a parliamentary republic ever since. The country's rich historical legacy is reflected in part by its 18 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

is pretty useful as it allows for the darker moments in Greece's history to be given a much-needed place on lead. However, is it just me or the way it is written, feels slightly off? I feel it would use some grammatical improvements (that is, to improve or re-word in a more encyclopedic fashion without changing the information it tries to deliver to the readers).

PS: the "The country's rich historical legacy is reflected in part by its 18 UNESCO World Heritage Sites." doesn't really feel like a good conclusion for the paragraph either. The writing of the last sentence really feels like it was made by another editor entirely, at a different time, and then just moved there (which is true). - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

SilentResident, the excerpt of the article's introduction that you quote was written by me last February, with the aim of providing a "concise overview of the history of modern Greece in the article's introduction" thinking that "it is inconceivable that no such brief presentation of the state's history should be presented [t]here in summary form". What exactly feels being off? I do not think myself that it is not written in a fashion proper to an encyclopedia's article, but I am, of course, not a native speaker of English and it might well be the case that grammatical or stylistic improvements are needed. Do you perhaps have something concrete to propose in your mind? Cheers, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

PS. You are correct as far as the last sentence is concerned; in my view, it would be better placed in this or a modified form as the introductory statement of the lead's section on Greece's history. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were the one who added the stuff to the lead. Thank you very much for the additions to the Lede which indeed was lacking regarding the modern history of the country. I am not a native English speaker either, and this is one of the reasons that held me from making such significant additions to the lead by myself. The information you added is useful as is, and if any adjustments have to be made, these are of grammatical nature or replacing certain words with others without changing their meaning. I can sense that there is definitely room for improvement in these sentences:

• Over the first hundred years the kingdom of Greece sought its territorial expansion: a comma may be needed at the middle of the sentence.
• which was mainly achieved in the early 20th century, during the Balkan Wars and up until the catastrophe of Greece's Asia Minor Campaign in 1922. the following word: catastrophe, perhaps should be replaced with a more neutral word. While indeed it was catastrophic from a Greek perspective, the outsiders may not see it as "catastrophe" in the literal sense, and rarely you can see that term being used on ledes of articles about other countries whose wars had a decisive impact to them. Since Greece's lands that were lost in that campaign, were not pre-war ones, but post-war ones, thus, can't exactly be considered as catastrophic as the current wording may unintentionally suggest. Perhaps a replacement with another word i.e. "failure" because what happened in the war, was a failure, and what followed after, are the harsh consequences of being defeated in a war. Simple as that.
• allowing it to join the ranks of developed nations: Perhaps if replacing "allowing it to join the ranks of" with "placing it among" can be a tad better.
• The country's rich historical legacy is reflected in part by its 18 UNESCO World Heritage Sites. moving that elsewhere, will definitely help improve the whole paragraph's quality I think. Or re-word it to match the rest of the paragraph.

These are my points for now. I could have made the changes to the article by myself but I thought it is better to discuss them first in the talk page, and get some opinions on the matter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Since Greece's lands that were lost in that campaign, were not pre-war ones, but post-war ones, thus, can't exactly be considered as catastrophic" Who is speaking about the lands? The result of Greece's defeat were the existence of about a million of Greek refugees, and the population exchange between Greece and Turkey (1923). Greece ended up with a large minority of Pontic Greeks, who had trouble adjusting to their new environment. People were still complaining about the problems of their exile in the 1950s and the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I admit, I wasn't thinking too much about the population exchange here, since the sentence in question starts by mentioning just the territorial aspects here, not the societal/humanitarian ones. If these aspects is what justifies keeping the "catastrophic" on the lead, then shouldn't they be mentioned as well? Its not like as if the population exchange is undue for the lead, considering - how like you said it youself - that the migration of such a large minority had a significant impact. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, SilentResident. I don't really have an opinion on the comma or on the rephrasing of the bit about Greece entering the chorus of "developed nations" (which, by the way, I forgot to add was not my addition to the introduction, and am now thinking it might suit better to the last paragraph of the introduction). As I said in my previous comment, I am in agreement with what you said about moving the sentence on UNESCO sites to a different point of the introduction.

Now, as far as the "Catastrophe" is concerned, I consciously used the term taking into account that the popular currency the word has gained in Greece to refer to the defeat of 1922 has made it a term that is also used in scientific/academic literature. See, for example, Renee Hirschon's important Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe: The Social Life of Asia Minor Refugees in Piraeus and more pieces, like "Children of Memory: Narratives of the Asia Minor Catastrophe and the Making of Refugee Identity in Interwar Greece", "The Heritage of Trauma: Commemorative Monuments of the Asia Minor Catastrophe in Greece", "Reassessing the “Asia Minor Catastrophe” of 1922: Collective Memory and Refugee Identity in Interwar Greece" or "Greece from national expansion to schism and catastrophe, 1912–1922". "until its Asia Minor Campaign ended in catastrophic defeat in 1922".

You write that ""Since Greece's lands that were lost in that campaign, were not pre-war ones, but post-war ones, thus, can't exactly be considered as catastrophic." And yet, Greece's defeat in this venture is characterized as "catastrophic" as a matter of course in English scholarly literature. I am only quoting one of many similar references (one can verify the frequency with which the term is used e.g. by searching Google books) from a recently published book "Following its catastrophic defeat in the Greek-Turkish War (1920–1922), Greece [...]" (Alex G. Papadopoulos, Triantafullos G. Petridis, Hellenic Statecraft and the Geopolitics of Difference (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021), p. 98, n. 4). Taking this into account, do you think rephrasing the sentence in question ("Over the first hundred years the kingdom of Greece sought its territorial expansion, which was mainly achieved in the early 20th century, during the Balkan Wars and up until the catastrophe of Greece's Asia Minor Campaign in 1922") into "Over the first hundred years the kingdom of Greece sought its territorial expansion, which was mainly achieved in the early 20th century, during the Balkan Wars and up until its Asia Minor Campaign ended with [or: met with] catastrophic defeat in 1922." would perhaps make it more neutral and acceptable?

I am not sure whether an explicit reference to the refugees is due in the introduction, but my off-the-cuff suggestion would be to add it, if necessary, in the sentence dealing with the Second Hellenic Republic, e.g. "beset by the ramifications of civil strife and the challenge of resettling the refugees from Turkey etc". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119: Your response to me, was tangible and has effectively addressed my concerns regarding the newly added paragraph. I appreciate this. However, I do believe that the info about developed nations is mentioned in a historical context. Correct? Therefore, it wouldn't be as a good idea if it is moved to the 4th paragraph. It is better if it stays on the third paragraph because the 4th one more or less already provides similar information on the matter as an effective conclusion of the lead. About Catastrophic being a Greek POV, I can see now that this is not the case as originally thought, and thus, I wouldn't object to it staying. But if you ask me, your proposal "during the Balkan Wars and up until its Asia Minor Campaign which ended with a catastrophic defeat in 1922." sounds much better imo. (And in bold: a small a grammar correction if you don't mind). As for the matter of the refugees: would be a good idea to add them to the paragraph or else it will still falsely imply that the catastrophic here, was from a stricktly territorial perspective only. Therefore the addition of your "and the challenge of resettling the refugees from Turkey" will prove useful to the readers because not every nation in the past century had such large-scale population exchanges that impacted the economic and political life of the said countries in such a dramatic way and shaped how Greek cities, including the capital, look today, with are characterized by an anarchic city planning and construction. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@SilentResident, I have now made both modifications to the article's introduction.

I might well be wrong in this, but I have a reservation about the exactness of the first phrase's meaning following the addition of "which". My understanding, when reading the sentence without the word "which" [I fail to see what is grammatically wrong in this case, perhaps due to my insufficient grasp of the English language], is that it posits that Greece's territorial expansion continued during the Asia Minor Campaign (which began in May 1919) until the "catastrophic defeat" of 1922. The sentence including "which", on the other hand, seems to me to convey the meaning that the temporal limit, the terminus ante quem, of Greece's territorial expansion wasn't the defeat of 1922, but the Asia Minor Campaign itself -- which is not entirely accurate (viz. Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine in November 1919 and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920).

As far as the bit about economic history: I also noticed that there is some sort of overlap in the last two paragraphs in this regard ("allowing it to join the ranks of developed nations" "Greece is a [...] developed country etc") and thought that it might be better resolved by adding the phrase in the 4th paragraph (e.g. "Greece is a unitary parliamentary republic and, after achieving / having achieved record economic growth from 1950 through the 1970s, a developed country etc"). With the UNESCO sentence also moved to a different place in the introduction, the currently penultimate sentence on Greece being "a parliamentary republic ever since" could also be somehow merged with the identical phrasing in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. And thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ashmedai 119@SilentResident I have the feeling that the economic growth of Greece continued into the 90s and 2000s. See for example this image from the article Economy of Greece. Cinadon36 16:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a bit "dark" ("catastrophic", "civil war", "occupation", "dictatorship"), so mentioning the Greek economic miracle balances it out somewhat. Khirurg (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

77.28.89.80 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

bate ove se klasicici krimose ace e nas a oni go kardat a vie gi podrzuvate klosarana edna kopilaci sram da vi e

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 23:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

Greek Scientists : addition of : Constantinos Daskalakis (Computer Scientist, Nevanlinna Prize 2018), Paris Kanellakis (Computer Scientist), Elias Koutsoupias (Computer Scientist, [Godel Prize]] 2012), Yiannis N. Moschovakis (Mathematician, Logician), Athanassios Fokas (Mathematician), Demetrios Christodoulou (Theoretical Physicist), John Iliopoulos (Theoretical Physicist, Dirac Medal 2007) John P.A. Ioannidis (Medical Statistics), Paul Alivisatos (Chemist), Phaedon Avouris (Biochemist) BILIASTAM (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

As a lot of other countries have this(Turkey, Spain, Bulgaria etc. lot of other countries) I suggest that after "Greece" there's also(Greek: Ελλάδα and the pronounciation for it which I don't have the time now to find what the code for it is but you understand what I mean, look at the countries I mentioned and you understand. 2A02:2F0F:F105:B100:EC70:4153:4224:EFEA (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, we deliberately decided to move this material into footnotes to avoid Lead bloat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok then do this to other countries as well, there are lots of them besides the ones I listed, so "unbloat" them as well :-) 213.233.108.123 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There typically won't be total uniformity across articles about things like that. Articles differ in the amount and complexity of material that would have to be listed there – Greece has 2 (or even 3) names in English, plus 3 in Greek, each of the latter having a form in the native script, one transliterated and one rendered in IPA, amounting to 11 or 12 forms that could potentially be listed. For many other countries this tends to be significantly simpler. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

at the section of Greek Music, expansion is needed in relation to popular singers and composers such as Markos Vamvakaris and Manolis Chiotis where no mention is made, also the main Greek operettas are not mentioned such as The Baptistikos by Theofrastos Sakellaridis. Alkeus (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Gap 1949 to 1965/7

There appears to be a gap in the history and I wonder if someone who knows the period could fill it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

According to the 2011 census in Greece, there were around 912,000 permanent foreign residents from other countries in Greece, including Albanians (480,851), Bulgarians (75,917), Romanians (46,524), Pakistanis (34,178), Georgians (27,407), Ukraine (17,008) as well as smaller groups from the UK, Cyprus, Poland, Russia, India, Bangladesh, Germany, Egypt, Moldova and the Philippines. Significant minorities in Greece are Vlachs (200,000), Arvanites (95,000), ethnic Macedonians (100,000–200,000), Roma/Gypsies (265,000), Turks 90,000, Pomaks (35,000– 40,000) and Jews (5,000). Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://minorityrights.org/country/greece/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. We need secondary Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the topic (that is Greece). So, my suggestion is to look for a secondary source that deals with Greece in general and also mentions minorities, not a source about minorities in general that also mentions Greece. Cinadon36 08:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Παρακαλώ, στο κεφάλαιο της γεωγραφίας, νομίζω ότι πρέπει να προστεθεί κάτι για τις λίμνες

Παρακαλώ, στο κεφάλαιο της γεωγραφίας, νομίζω ότι πρέπει να προστεθεί κάτι για τις λίμνες 46.252.39.141 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't do it if you don't tell us in English what you want to add about lakes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should this article be updated to say Greece is a transcontinental country?

It technically speaking is, because some of Greece's islands in the Aegean Sea are located east of the Europe-Asia border, thus making them technically Asian. NesserWiki (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, please provide a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I found a wiki page stating it. I am saying it should be updated to say that it is transcontinental. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transcontinental_countries NesserWiki (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how stating this or linking to the article will help readers understand this page. Moxy- 02:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Problem with "too long" tag

@Nikkimaria

The fact that other countries' articles are much larger in size, but bear no "too long to read" tag, makes your edit somewhat "unfair".

Greece's article is currently —2 Novemer 2023— at 313,954 bytes

Examples of country-articles exceeding Greece's byte-size but having no tag:
India, a featured article of 315,818 bytes,
Israel (at 402,037 bytes),
The United Stated (316,851 bytes),
China (at 352,561 bytes) and more.

Excuse my tone, but unless you manage to provide me with a rationale supporting your edit, or with a set of suggestions on improving the article by properly reducing its size, and if you are unwilling or unable to explain why the other articles bear no such tag, I'll have to revert your edit as unjustifiable and/or biassed.
Thank you, L'Orfeo^{Son io} 13:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article size is measured in readable prose rather than raw byte count. By that metric this is the longest of the articles you mention - nearly double India. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, Thank you for your swift answer, and, again, excuse my somewhat defensive tone. I was unaware of the means of assessment. This being considered, the comparisons I made above do not hold up. In any case, the prose could be reduced in a manner that the meaning is not shattered. In time, maybe, I'll try. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why arent ancient/medieval Greek Kingdoms like the Macedonian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Myceneans, Minoans, Cycladics, Greek City States and so on included in the „Establishment“ part of the info box?

Almost every other country has a bigger establishment section with kingdoms from antiquity or middle ages till present being listed in the establishment part of the info box. One of the only countrys who dont is Greece. DaManFrFr (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the entities you listed amounted to a state of "Greece". Several of them weren't even "states" to begin with. The first time in history there actually was a state called Greece was in 1830. And even independently of the name, there never was any single state whose territory was even roughly coextensive with what is now Greece either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

But where a kingdom was situated or what its name was shouldnt matter as long as it was ruled by Greeks and spoke Greek. Like Georgia wasnt called Georgia till the 10th century, yet its establishment section spans until the Kingdom of Colchis(13th century BC) although not having the same name as current Georgia and also not having the same territory as modern Georgia. DaManFrFr (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. That section is about the establishment process of the present-day Greek state, not more and not less. There are certain cases where such a history legitimately goes a long way back (think of present-day France, which actually has an unbroken continuity of state-hood from the early medieval Frankish kingdom), and there may be cases where it makes sense to include earlier predecessor kingdoms even in the absence of direct continuity, if these can be shown to have served as historical models for later modern nation-building (think of medieval "Poland", "Bulgaria" etc.) But just because some historical entity was X-speaking or ruled by members of ethnicity X doesn't automatically make it part of the establishment of a modern state of X. The Georgia page you cited is just a very bad example – Wikipedians sometimes do poorly-thought-out things, and just because they did that on one article isn't a reason to do the same on another. Much better models to consider would be the articles on Italy, where the establishment section legitimately begins in 1861, or Iraq, where it starts in 1932. That's as it should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement that infoboxes in articles about contemporary states should only present "establishment process of the present-day" states, and this does indeed justify harckening back to much earlier times only in those cases of "unbroken continuity" for many centuries as is the case of France. However, Future Perfect at Sunrise introduces another criterion of inclusion, stating that "there may be cases where it makes sense to include earlier predecessor kingdoms even in the absence of direct continuity, if these can be shown to have served as historical models for later modern nation-building (think of medieval "Poland", "Bulgaria" etc.)". I think that, were this criterion to be adopted also in the case of Greece, references to events about the establishment (and disestablishment) of the eastern Roman Empire should be included in the article's infobox. For, the Byzantine Empire clearly served as a historical moden for the modern Greek state during the first century of its existence, in terms of the construction of a legal system for the modern Greek nation-state, of its national ideology and the goals of foreign policy. Since this is taken to be across the encyclopedia the standard for inclusion , as it truly seems to be, judging by the infoboxes of articles on Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania and Bulgaria (i.e. almost all countries bordering Greece along with Serbia), then it seems reasonable to adopt the same (in my personal view erroneous) criterion in the case of Greece as well and include events relating to the establishment of the eastern Roman Empire in the infobox. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Trimming "History" section

Tpbradbury has recently trimmed the article as it was too long. I have reverted some parts of his edits in the article's "History" section for reasons that are explained in the summary of each of my edits and trimmed other parts trying to explain in my edits's summaries why it is preferable to delete or shorten these other sentences or phrases instead of others. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Article definitely needs to be summarized much better with whole sections consolidated. 58 sections here vs 36 at an FA level article like Canada or 41 for an ancient civilization like this one at Japan. The history section could be cut in half and section like economy should be reduced to four paragraphs....Economy in FA articles are usually four or five paragraphs....not 7 or 8 sections... Is it relevant how many fishing ships there were over a decade ago.... Or when 4G and 5G service was made available? We could summarize the debt crisis in a sentence or two. See Canada#Economy for a good example. Military history is as odd section to have..... If military actions were relevant enough they should be in the history section.... Again an example of way too much history here.Moxy🍁 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand Ashmedai's comment. It is logical that when a user boldly undertakes the task of reducing an artcile's size without prior discussion or adequate explanation, they might end up removing parts that another user may find important. Generally, the "trimminng" so far seems okay; it is mostly trimming of superfluous wording and making sentences more concise. There might still be some trivial information in parts like the economy, politics etc. (as Moxy pointed out) that could be condensed. For example, the Dept Crisis section continues to be disproportionately huge, compared to other sections; I'm not even sure it needs to be a separate section in the first place (as Moxy said, even a few sentences could be sufficient). Some sections seem to have a lot of paragraphs consisting of only a few sentences. Perhaps these need to be condesed into fewer, solid paragraphs. I guess, we'll see how it goes. Piccco (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not mean to question the need to somehow shorten this article. But I doubt that "The history section could be cut in half", as Moxy claims, without detrimental effects to the article's quality. The article on Israel (which is comparable as it concerns a newly founded nation-state which traces its history to past millenia) seems to have a "History" section with as many subsections as this article. Neither do I agree that "the "trimming" so far seems okay", as far as the "History" section is concerned. This has been done in a matter that is hasty, since editors started chopping off important information (that has to be restored) without first bothering to locate and delete repetitions, and in a manner that betrays that editors involved lack either even superficial knowledge of or a genuine interest for the article's subject -- editing the article in a matter that it stated that the 4th of August Regime lasted until 1974... The process so far has been exceptionally uneven with information on the foundational event of the modern Greek nation-state, the Greek Revolution, covered in less text than is devoted to the performance of various sport teams. That is, I can't understand why the trimming has been focused on the section on History and not e.g. on "Economy" or "Sports" or the sections on "Philosophy" and "Mythology" which deal almost entirely with the pre-modern past and not with the modern nation-state, which is the article's main topic. I am thus removing the "too long" template from the article's section on History. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ashmedai, I understand you and I agree that the history does not need further trimming. Just like you, I was a little more concerned about that section specifically (eventhough I didn't state it in my previous comment), because as already mentioned, during the trimming important information could end up being removed in the process. Due to the very large size of the recently removed content, I haven't been able to very carefully look at what is being removed. I agree that the war of independence might need more coverage; perhaps even the 'early history' section might've also been trimmed a bit too much (?). In any case, based on the current statistics, the article is not anymore in major need of trimming and the removal of the "too long" tags is appropriate. Piccco (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ashmedai, I just wanted to explain myself a bit regarding a few edits I recently made. In regards to the "economic miracle" sentence in the introduction; I did not really intend to imply that the economic growth and the restoration of democracy were somehow linked; that's why I did not re-add the older wording, which included the word 'nonetheless'. I just thought that the first sentense of the last paragraph would become a bit crowded with even more information being added, but If you think it's better there, I don't really have strong opinions about this. Regarding the League of Corinth; I just thought the organization itself is definitely remarkable enough to have a reference in the paragraph. By "united" I had in mind not one state, of course, but mainly military unity. In any case, perhaps a better wording could be found for that too. Piccco (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Piccco, thank you for your message. There is talk in the literature of the participation in the campaign against the Persian Empire having a unifying effect, but at the same time Walbank, "The Problem of Greek Nationality", Phoenix 5, 2 writes among others about the League of Corinth being the "supposedly great moment of Greek unification" (p. 43), comments on "The difficulty involved in transforming such a war-alliance into an instrument of political unification in time of peace" adding that "any attempt by the hegemon -the war-leader- to centralize political power was always felt by the rest to be an encroachment and an abuse" (p. 50), and argues (ibid.) that "if there is any practical trace of unity in fourth century Greece, it was realized in the coalition which Demosthenes raised against Philip. For the next hundred and fifty years the one constant basis of common action in Greece is hostility towards Macedon" and that "The Macedonian controlled Leagues from 338 down to 224 were debarred from fostering unity in Greece precisely because they were Macedonian. Their political structure was often admirable. Both the League of Philip II and the League of Antigonus Doson have been praised as being among the most statesmanlike achievements of their kind in world history; but both stood for outside domination" (pp. 53-4). All together, taken into account along with the terms used in the sources already cited in the article's relevant passage, seem to me to make the use of the term rather problematic. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Transcontinental country?

This article has the Transcontinental countries category, but is only listed (and considered) as a country in Europe. Shouldn't it be removed? Deiadameian (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Cinadon36 07:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the description of Greece as a "transcontinental" country is still also in the article (in the geography section), and conversely the country is also still mentioned in the List of transcontinental countries article. I have no strong feelings either way whether it should be – in one sense it clearly is, factually, transcontinental, but on the other hand it is very rarely described as such in outside sources for all I can see. We may need to live with the fact that there is no commonly accepted definition of the term and, more importantly, no factually consistent practice of using it out there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On the page's categorization, it is only listed as "Countries in Europe" (compare to both Portugal and Spain being also listed as "Countries in North Africa"). What I am saying is, a country can't both be transcontinental and also only belong in one contintent at the same time. Deiadameian (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not super-consistent, but there's no law that requires us to be consistent when there is no consistency in real-world usage in the first place. I don't think readers would expect to find Greece in a category of "countries in Asia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Which means that readers won't expect to find Greece in a category of "Transcontinental countries" either. Like I said, a country can't be transcontinental when it's associated with only one continent, like Greece is. Deiadameian (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thing is: Greece is technically a transcontinental country. But the amount of Asian territory it holds is disproportionately smaller compared to the European territory it holds. Plus it doesn't help the fact that these "Asian islands" in question, are so, in a geographical context only; they still are politically and culturally considered to be part of Europe. Just like Cyprus which is Asian geographically, but European in every other way. This unique case makes it too complicated to simply apply the standard encyclopedic criteria here. But in either way, it cannot be questioned that term "transcontinental" here is used in a purely geographical context, and that some of Greece's territories, such as Kastellorizo, are indeed, part of the Asian continent. So the best solution to all this is to simply accept the fact that Greece is transcontinental in a geographical context, but avoid giving it more significance than there is about it. It only complements to the well-established fact that the country is geopolitically noted for being situated at the crossroads of the continents. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for the fun of it: In the 1990s, this sign stood in the harbour of Kastellorizo, the 9 square km Greek island that most certainly technically is in Asia, lying just 2 km off the Turkish coast and 125 km from the nearest Greek land. The text down right states proudly: “Europe starts here” --T*U (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I'm going to remove the statement, along with a piece of unfortunate WP:OR that was recently added to it and would have had to be reverted in any case [11]. But also in its previous form, the sentence about "is considered a transcontinental country" is both unsourced and most likely wrong. Who "considers" it as such? I looked again through the literature and could find nothing, nothing at all, in any reliable source listing Greece among "transcontinental countries". The thing is, being "transcontinental" is really not a meaningful and consistently defined concept at all. It's not something there is any coherent body of literature about. The term is merely used here and there in an ad-hoc fashion, by authors who need to justify the lumping in of either Russia or Turkey with their European or Asian neighbors for purposes of some geographical clustering or other. But it's not a category geographers bother writing about and developing criteria for in its own right. Whenever authors do provide a list of countries they consider "transcontinental", every author's list is different – the only thing they all agree on is to include Turkey and Russia, and then possibly one or two more. The whole idea of "categorizing" countries by whether they are transcontinental or not seems to be little more than a self-created piece of idle speculation on the part of Wikipedians and authors of low-quality trivia websites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

Remove intricate details and reduce the word count from 14,000 to a more readable 10,000 at maximum. 64.189.18.34 (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs a sub section regarding their involvement of persecuting ottoman Muslims during ottoman contraction

Examples of this can be seen in Crete and the fall of Thessaloniki. Greece was one of the key players in persecuting ottoman Muslims and its page should not be exempt from at least outlining how when and where it did so. 92.40.196.175 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)