Talk:Greek withdrawal from the eurozone

"Documents a Current Event" tagging justified?

I would have gone ahead and done this already, but it depends on whether you consider the discussion of a possible (and even likely) event in the future to be part of a "current event." Given the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of Grexit discussion, adding such a tag is especially problematic. If people read the tag as saying "the exit is already happening", the article could be doing something that Wikipedia shouldn't: helping to make it happen. I'm not saying Grexit shouldn't happen -- that's an econ/policy question. I happen to favor an exit, on the right terms. But I'd also favor debt forgiveness instead, on the right terms. All I mean is that it's not Wikipedia's job to make an event like this even slightly more likely. Perhaps if the article forward to "Grexit Controversy"? Yakushima (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The {{Current}} tag is only to be used to advise editors that the article is subjected to high-volume editing, which generally a hundred edits or more per day. That is the only purpose of that and other associated templates. It is not to be used to signal a current event to article readers only. __meco (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ελλεξοδος

It is perhaps inevitable that the word Ελλεξοδος, a Hellenisation of "Grexit", has started to appear on Greek news reports. I couldn't think of a suitable place to add it in the article, but if anyone has done a better review of way the crisis is being reported in Greece, that word might be worth noting. Howard Alexander (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be included. Let's bring in some sources and then we'll add it. __meco (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pointless, Stupid Move

You know, I do really hate when people jump in to name-move longstanding articles, especially (a) without discussion (b) to utterly stupid, pulled-out-of-a-hat names like "Greece withdrawal from the eurozone". As article names goes, that is up there with "America burning down in flames"; the wording completely fails to identify the subject matter (Has Greece withdrawn? Among other confusions), is pointlessly clunky, and it doesn't even "spell it out". Please, tell me how "Greece withdrawal from the eurozone" spells "Grexit" Human.v2.0 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

When I created this page it was called "Grexit". I do not know by whom and why it was renamed like this. --Jpvandijk (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring all the angry ranting in the OP, the rational for the move was:

• using slang neologisms is discouraged on wikipedia.
• it is less ambiguous than Grexit, which is sometimes used to refer to a Greek exit from the entire EU (ie [1]). "Grexit" does not specify whether the exit has already occurred, so the new title is no more ambiguous on that front.
• it is more recognizable to someone who has not heard the slang Grexit term.
• it is consistent with Brexit being located at United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union.

That being said, if the move is disputed I will happily take it to an RM. TDL (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Greek withdrawal from the eurozone, which seems to have developed as a consensus solution. Number 57 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Greece withdrawal from the eurozone → Greek exit from Euro – After TDL's contested move two years ago, I'm now proposing to move the page to a slightly less artificial title which in the contrary to the current title is recognizable as full version of "Grexit", and is stilll no neologism. Note also that United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU has been renamed to some other title, so for better or worse the intended consistency has gone anyway. PanchoS (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Support a move perhaps to Greek exit from the Eurozone GregKaye 13:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that's better. One more alternative would be Greek exit from Eurozone, leaving out the undefined article. This is supported by a number of Google hits, too, including Financial Times and the Guardian. --PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Greek exit from the Eurozone (with "the"), or Greek withdrawal from the Euro, or as a third choice any variation of these that reads naturally in English. The current title and both of the nominator's suggestions fail this simple test. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That seems to be your subjective intuition, because the link I gave shows that the definite article is not necessarily used, even by major publications. Anyway I'm fine with all of these proposals all proposals containing "Greek exit" as the full name should at least reflect the abbreviation "Grexit". --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it isn't always used, but if you want to cite google hits then "the" gets 20x more hits than "no the". I agree with the above comments that without a "the" it sounds awkward. TDL (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - euro/eurozone should not be capitalized in sentence case (see for example [2]). TDL (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Someone should make the capitalization consistent throughout the various articles where it's mentioned (e.g. Euro and Enlargement of the eurozone)... Though even using the search on that website seems to give both capitalized and uncapitalized results. --V2Blast (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree we need to make usage consistent across wiki. Looks like the link that I posted above is now dead, but the EU's style guide says "Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital." The Economist's Style Guide concurs, and says "Prefer euro zone or euro area". TDL (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. States cannot enter or exit a currency. One wouldn't say "Greek entry to the drachma". Greece can only exit/withdraw from the eurozone. I prefer withdrawal, since exit sounds informal. TDL (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Greek withdrawal from the eurozone per @Danlaycock:.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Greek withdrawal from the eurozone... Though Wikipedia articles seem to be inconsistent about whether "Eurozone" should be capitalized. The Eurozone article itself capitalizes the word throughout, but other articles (such as the main Euro article and Enlargement of the eurozone) are less consistent. Whatever ends up happening, someone should standardize those... --V2Blast (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Apologies for capitalising it: I was going for consistency. As there is no doubt that the euro, as a currency, should be lower case, it would indeed be simpler if we also lowercased Eurozone in its article, but last time I looked it was all capitals. Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and decapitalized it throughout eurozone. TDL (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. There are other articles... Rothorpe (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC) ...Ah, yes, this one. I'll do it.::::Done. Rothorpe (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

POV in 2015 Speculation section?

I feel like this line has some pretty significant POV: "The German government's interference in the upcoming elections in Greece was strongly criticized...". Maybe it would be better as "The German government's stance on the upcoming elections in Greece was strongly criticized..." Also, since the elections have now passed, these things should be put into the past tense. Sephalon1 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - The prior near unanimous consensus to move to current name in January and split consensus here makes leaving the name as it the most prudent option. Per Andrewa below, article titles are not newpaper headlines and such a move without overwhelming consensus would create a complicated precedent. I would suggest abstaining from any new move requests for at least 6 months. Mike Cline (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Greek withdrawal from the eurozone → Proposed Greek withdrawal from the eurozone – Hello, Obviously, the name of this article is the topic of discussion of most of this talk page, indicating how sensible it is.

I have a problem with the current name in that to the uninformed reader it makes the Greek withdrawal look like a certain, or past, event, which it is not. Also, this page was originally moved from Grexit citing "consistency with Brexit being located at United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union", however this page has since been moved to Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union.

For these reasons, I would like to suggest a move to something like Proposed Greek withdrawal from the eurozone per consistency with the page cited above. However, Discussed, Argued or Eventual Greek withdrawal from the eurozone also are arguable targets, as, unlike the UK referendum, nobody (but commentators) actually proposes the withdrawal per se but there is no doubt that it is discussed. Place Clichy (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Place Clichy (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support misleading title per WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which part of the criteria do you believe supports the move? TDL (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the WP:CRITERIA. I can find no evidence of the proposed title ever being used by reliable sources: [3]. The current title, on the other hand, is actually used by sources to describe this subject, ie. [4][5][6]. Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and naturalness (WP:COMMONNAME), we should use a title that is actually used by sources, not a novel phrase never used before.

The proposed title is also over-WP:PRECISE. The current title unambiguously indicates the subject. There is only one Grexit, and it is the proposed one. The proposal adds more words without clarifying the scope of the subject. Thus the current title is also more concise. TDL (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can argue that for Grexit, but this is no longer the title of the article, and with reason. The one Grexit is concise for sure, precise maybe, but Greek withdrawal from the eurozone loses in concision what it gains in misleading readers. Once again, Greece is not (not yet) withdrawing from the eurozone, which the title seems to imply. Grexit as a title does not imply anything, so the issue is different. Place Clichy (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy based reason why article titles must indicate the status of the subject, or that a subject is not "a certain, or past, event". There is an established practice of titling articles on subjects which are "proposed" without this information in the title: ie. Korean reunification, United Ireland, United States of Europe, Franco-British Union, Indo-Pak Confederation, Arab Union, Cornish Assembly, North American monetary union, Adams Memorial, Flag of the Earth, Freedom Ship, Human extinction etc., etc., etc. None of these things are likely to become a reality in the foreseeable future (hopefully on the last one), but they don't contain "proposed" in the title since their current titles unambiguously identifies the subject, which is the point of the title. Titles aren't supposed to explain the subject, articles do. TDL (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would not go so far as to say that "there is an established practice" to do what you say, and I am not convinced about your examples, as it is very easy to find plenty that say otherwise. Besides already mentioned Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union (and WP:CRITERIA does explicitly call for consistency between similar/related articles), take: Potential superpowers, Fictional American president, Potential National Hockey League expansion, Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion, Val Verde (fictional country), Wuthering Heights (fictional location), Control (fictional character) etc.

About the term fictional, I will agree with you that it does not apply to the current situation. The topic of this article is speculative, discussed, argued, proposed, but not fictional.

As a median solution, what would you think of adding the word scenario(s) somewhere in the title, such as Greek withdrawal scenario from the eurozone? That would still be precise, and be less misleading for readers. Place Clichy (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the articles you list refute the point since they all require WP:DISAMBIG. The "potential" merely serves to disambiguate. For example, Potential superpowers is titled so as to distinguish it from Superpower. Likewise for Fictional American president vs American president; Potential National Hockey League expansion vs 1967 NHL expansion; Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion vs Kontinental Hockey League team changes; Val Verde (fictional country) vs Val Verde, California; Wuthering Heights (fictional location) vs Wuthering Heights; Control (fictional character) vs Control (management) and Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union vs United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975. In this case there is no ambiguity. By all means, if Greece had previously withdrew from the eurozone then I would support the proposal to distinguish the different Grexits. But since they haven't, it is unnecessarily to disambiguate the title. If you want to cite consistency, see Icelandic European Union membership referendum and Danish European Union opt-outs referendum for unambiguous "proposed" referendums. An even even better comparison is Withdrawal from the European Union. The current title is consistent with that. TDL (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator Place Clichy (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support current title is misleading. Although maybe a neutral title that doesn't depend on withdrawal or not would be better - for example Greece's relationship with the eurozone.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral/Support The current name maybe gives the impression of an event that has already taken place. A change of name probably is advisable. Another possible name could be "Potential Greek withdrawal from the eurozone". Also adding " (Grexit)" at the end of the title does not seem a bad idea.SoSivr (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the nominator. So far this is a possible but unlikely event.
• Oppose this will happen some time, only question is when — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no need for an event to be "true" or to have transpired for it to have an article and be named accordingly. See for example Game 39, United States of Europe, 1940 Summer Olympics, for things that were talked about but never took place. They do not have and do not need any further adjectives such as "proposed". The title Proposed Greek withdrawal from the eurozone fails on WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, and even accuracy - who has proposed such a withdrawal? Nobody in official circles has done so. All in all, the name agreed in January is still fine. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it's a proposal not a fact, but then so are many other pages which don't have this sort of unnecessary qualification. This proposed move would set a disastrous precedent. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Distinction between Eurozone membership and Choice of Currency

I added the deleted text back and added references as requested. I didn't think it was necessary, since my change was really just removing some (unreferenced) existing text and explaining why. I know that wikipedia takes refenencing seriously, but it is really not reasonable to expect a non-assumption to be referenced. See Russell's_Teapot—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksix (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons to Russel's teapot are nonsense. Please read carefully WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. You cannot make comparisons to Kosovo and Montenegro, without citing an expert opinion and just by quoting Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. An expert must make the connection about Kosovo and Montenegro and the Greek crisis, not you. If you can find such a reliable source of an expert making the connection you can add it to Wikipedia, but not until then. I also removed additional material containing unsourced original research. The material talked about how difficult it would be "persuading" the "Greeks and their businesses" to change from euro to the new currency without citing any sources. The terminology was also unencyclopaedic. Please do not reinstate this unsourced tripe. thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I see you removed the entire section of "Unsourced Tripe". At least that is consistent, albeit obnoxious. I bet you would have come down on me like a ton of bricks if I had removed it myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksix (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about obnoxious, please refer to the policy on ad-hominem arguments. Concerning the ton of bricks comment, please avoid speculation and consult the other fundamental Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith. Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will take it on board. Thanks. You would be well advised to read your last two sentences carefully and think how they apply to your own behavior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksix (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My two last sentences refer to the phrases you used to personally attack me, so they can hardly apply to my behaviour toward you. Do you have any examples where I have commented personally about you? In the absence of such examples your comment is yet another example of personal comments directed against me showing lack of assumption of good faith on your part. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are deliberately trying to aggrevate me and to start an argument. I refuse to have one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksix (talk • contribs)

Quote: You are deliberately trying to aggrevate me and to start an argument. I just asked for evidence that I personally atacked you. Instead of providing said evidence, you provided more evidence about your lack of assuming good faith even though I made you aware of the AGF policy before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Recentism

The whole 'Grexit' term suffers from recentism, and is often used for political purposes. Handle with care. -Mardus (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section could use a rewrite

The most obvious thought a reader might have upon seeing this article is the surprisingly high level of WP:REDUNDANCY in the lead, especially with the first sentence - it does something that's specifically advised against: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. I don't want to reword anything myself since it's a current event and I don't want to do anything contentious. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 05:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

'exit from Euro', can be different things

could be. 1) Greeks issue their own currency, in violation of the treaty 2) Greek govt debt is no longer accepted as collateral for inter-bank lending 3) Greece is thrown out of the Eurozone's 'seinorage' arrangement that gives out profit fron central bank operations to member states, there is no legal arrangement for this to happen This article needs to discuss all of this. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to Greek Tragedy

Should link this page to Greek Tragedy ... or perhaps Greek comedy ?  ;-) 66.155.23.67 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm...why? Jackninja5 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Greece can't leave the Euro without leaving the EU

Danlaycock, you reverted the lead (2 October 2016, 18:23) because of your (outsider) opinion that Greece has the option to leave the Euro without exiting the EU. You linked to your source (http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/how-can-greece-leave-the-euro-and-remain-within-the-eu). Please acknowledge that you selected more a "Eurosceptic campaign group" than a reliable source as you can read in the WP Open Europe article.

Even your special source says: 'The EU treaties do not currently provide a mechanism for a country to leave the euro, either unilaterally or in a negotiated mannerstates'. Can we agree that EU laws clearly tell that a member state can't leave the Euro, a member state can only leave the EU and thereby as a consequence has to exit the Euro currency?--Thereisnofreename (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not my "opinion", many reliable sources discuss this possibility. Do you have any sources support your argument that "Greece can't leave the Euro without leaving the EU". Note that the law being silent on something does not mean that the law forbids something. Nor does it rule out the possibility that the law could be changed to allow for it. Saying something is impossible is very strong language, and should be supported by sources, not just personal opinions.

The subject of this article is a hypothetical concept in general, which includes both legal and non-legal paths, so the question of whether it could legally happen or not is irrelevant to the definition of the concept. There is no question that this was an option which was strongly discussed. Grexit was never discussed exclusively in the context as a complete exit from the EU as you suggest. For example, you may recall German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble (presumably you don't think he's an "outsider") proposed a temporary "time-out" [7]: "The time-out solution should be accompanied by supporting Greece as an EU member". Clearly, the possibility of Greece withdrawing from the eurozone while remaining in the EU was considered at the highest levels. TDL (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right, non-legal paths are not 'impossible', also future (even 100%) majorities to change contracts and laws are not 'impossible'. Even high ranked politicians were confronted with those scenarios or discussed them, usually non-publicly. You are not right that I want to suggest that the legal path according to existing contracts and law was discussed 'exclusively'. Much more I said the opposite: Only the wikipedia article lead excluded the legal path according to the existing laws and contracts, i.e. 'legal Grexit', starting with other special scenarios. For me, this is misleading. Btw, your own source supports the view that according to existing laws "Greece can't leave the Euro without leaving the EU". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnofreename (talk • contribs) 12:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You changed the definition at the start of the article to limit it to exclusively scenarios in which Greece completely exited the EU. Clearly, as you admit now, the subject is much broader than this. The definition in the first sentence should encompse the entire subject, not just some subset that in your opinion is more likely. TDL (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called "Grexit"?

"Grexit" is the common name for this phenomena...--Thereisnofreename (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Background

Anyone knows why the IMF projections are the "background" facts for Grexit?--Thereisnofreename (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

international law dimension: opinion by non-notable individual

I removed material by a single US individual (M Nicolas Firzli) who has no demonstrated expertise in this subject and is not personally notable. The material is effectively a blog since he uploaded it to the [commercial] platform academia.edu, though he himself is not an academic. If a similar point of view can be found where an expert in international law expresses and explains it, then it should certainly appear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://willembuiter.com/grexit.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/20/us-greece-newdrachma-idUSBRE84J03Q20120520
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/war-gaming-greek-euro-exit-highlights-hazards-in-46-hour-weekend.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9298195/De-La-Rue-silent-on-deal-to-print-Drachma.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/731488--greece-s-euro-exit-a-recipe-for-hardship
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9298195/De-La-Rue-silent-on-deal-to-print-Drachma.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118203115/http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/WolfsonPrize/wolfson%20economics%20prize%20winning%20entry.pdf to http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/WolfsonPrize/wolfson%20economics%20prize%20winning%20entry.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/greece-euro-idUSL5E8GTI5320120529
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://m.cnbc.com/id/47566743

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6B8e1SbXm?url=http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/05/grexit-greek-exit-eurozone/ to http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/05/grexit-greek-exit-eurozone/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706023837/http://www.phantis.com/news/clear-lead-syriza-public-issue-poll-support-euro-71 to http://www.phantis.com/news/clear-lead-syriza-public-issue-poll-support-euro-71

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page on Wikipedia?

Excuse me, but why are we posting hypotheticals on Wikipedia, just because someone invented some catchy words? How about Crexit and Craccident? How about Czexit and Czaccident? How about a real hypothetical, like Icexit and Ice Accident? I just made them up. Should I write an article? Could be fun. Greece is a member of the EU. This article falls way under any notability bar that I could envision. Henrik Erlandsson 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)

I completely agree @HenrikErlandsson:. This article is unworthy of an encyclopedia. It is pure political propaganda made up by people hostile to the EU and the euro-currency.

Jcwf (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose See wp:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it either but it is extensively supported by citation. We don't correct history. At the time, it was a serious proposal because conventional economics says that a bankrupt state can only get back on its feet by devaluing its currency. Worked really well for Argentina(!). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this obviously meets our WP:N guidelines. Hypothetical or not, it had significant coverage in reliable sources. TDL (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

They don't even know Greek / most words take accents and as the French capital letters are avoided except for citizen demonyms and countries - related nouns according to dictionaries don't start with a capital letter (some newspapers have spelling mistakes, that doesn't change the Greek language - officially when you have the option to express something as a noun but also a proper noun, the noun is preferred in proper Greek). (Some non-Greek Anglophones and some Greek Anglophones want poor Greece to die. Why Hungary which has so many Nazis and really hates the EU stays in the EU? Because poor people don't want to die and the prefer to be servants of Germany. Few rich people who don't care about others dying and work abroad want a Grexit. Malnutrition isn't debatable for the poor. Some non-empathetic people simply don't care. If you are personally dead, you will not be alive to see Grexit, so it's not the wisest option to select when you're alive. Grexit doesn't delete Germany and the EU from the map. Greece will continue to be poor and simply cut off from EU jobs. Maybe after 2000 years Grexit will turn nicely; but most specific voters wouldn't be alive to see the change. Greece doesn't have a heavy industry. They serve coffee. Greece isn't needed for the other countries. Spain produces more and cheaper olive oil. Also China and California produce olive oil. If one's not needed, has to swallow the sperm of the rulers. (Everything is written in Wikipedia, including impossibilities.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:848D:D400:7865:9EF6:693D:2179 (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 21:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Greek withdrawal from the eurozone → Grexit – Grexit is the WP:COMMONNAME and more in line with Brexit. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. While it is true that the UK media certainly used "Grexit" for Greece leaving the euro, IMO it would confuse readers because of the style AAexit has come to mean AA leaving the EU: see

• Danish withdrawal from the European Union (Danexit)
• Dutch withdrawal from the European Union (Nexit)
• Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union (Huxit)
• Polish withdrawal from the European Union (Polexit)
• Romanian withdrawal from the European Union (Roexit)

Note than none of these articles is called by its abbreviation. [btw, thank you for proposing this idea here first.]--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per 𝕁𝕄𝔽. "Brexit" is a specialized standalone term that has been reconfigured to fit other potential eurozone exits, but such linguistic twists have not had consensus for application to Wikipedia main title headers on this general topic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we should avoid using "slangy" terms unless they are clearly established. We also have the problem that "Grexit" could refer to not just Greek withdrawal from the eurozone, but withdrawal from the EU. PatGallacher (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others as an unnecessary neologism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 6 May 2023 (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.