Talk:Paul of Greece

Direct descendant of five Greek imperial (Byzantine) dynasties

This claim cannot be supported and should be taken off. It is well documented that Paul was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I am suspecting a Greek Royalist just put it there to support his political agenta.

Yeah, essentially all of the modern Greek kings (since the collapse of the Ottoman yoke) were German, Danish, etc. Where do the Byzantine emperors fit in?

Oh, come on! He must be descended from a large number of Byzantine emperors. Of course, he is not an agnatic descendant of any Byzantine emperor but every descendant is a "direct" descendant. Byzantine princesses often married European rulers and even more often married Russian rulers whose descendants then married European rulers. For example, he must be descended from Isaac II Angelos through Queen Maria of Germany. However, I am not sure how relevant that is seeing that (most likely) all currently reigning European monarchs are descended from a large number of Byzantine emperors. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Denham Fouts

If it's a secret how do we know about it? Are there any documents, or is it hearsay? If the latter, who said it? What was their relationship to Paul or Fouts? And how did they know about it? DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was secret only to the general public of the time, but the affair was well enough known in international high/homosexual society that references to Fouts being the lover of Paul appear in around half dozen biographies and autobiographies of contemporary figures, as well the several roman a clefs listed in the linked Fouts article, none of which you would ever trouble yourself with I'm sure. (You clearly didn't even bother to check the ones I referenced before supplying your edit page comment.) Given that you also deleted the section on Paul and Frederika's political interference (the most marked factor of their reign) shows that you have no regard for the truth, and what I presume you're now demanding is a signed confession from Paul written in Fouts' spoof. However, I'm disinclined to pander to the inadequate. Engleham (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. I, in fact, have Clive Fisher's Cyril Connolly in front of me, and it quite specifically says, "Fouts was said to have attended Nazi rallies in Berlin with a Prussian admirer and to have cruised the Aegean with the no less besotted King Paul of Greece." Note what it says: "was said to have" gone on a cruise. It says nothing about "maintaining a relationship", which implies a long-term commitment. It seems less certain than you are trying to portray. Your flame post is totally out-of-order. Particularly when taken in conjunction with other views of Fouts, such as "Myth surrounds Denham Fouts" (Katherine Bucknell's Christopher Isherwood Diaries volume 1, p.941) and "'He invented himself', said one of his friends John B. L. Goodwin, 'If people didn't know his background he would make it up."' (Gerald Clarke's Capote: A Biography p.172).

Your personal attack is totally unwarranted and I expect a retraction. DrKiernan (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry pet, you only have my contempt. But best o' luck with trying to whitewash the reputation of a king and his consort who never knew the meaning of constitutional monarchy. Engleham (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of removing any information regarding Fouts given that:

a) Assuming that Paul and Fouts were lovers, the only information regarding their relationship was on a cruise to the Aegean. A vacation-trip is an otherwise unmentionable biographical detail in an article that is supposed to serve as a primer for those attempting to find information regarding the life of the King of Greece. b) There is more information about Fouts in the opening paragraph then there is about Paul's own life. - 157.252.147.85 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed the element of his possible sexuality at the bottom of the page. However, someone should really take the time to write an effective article about Paul as the homosexual element really drowns out any other information and achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.147.85 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not support this paragraph. The sources listed do not say that Fouts "allegedly exaggerated" or that they "may be" myths. They say explicitly that they are myths, that they were inventions and that they were made up. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, so long as you attribute directly who said that they "are myths" and "made up". Otherwise the statement read as though it was fact. The statements should be cited directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 October 2010

Attributed. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Reads better! TY!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Therealscorp1an (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An important article, will take this review on. Constantine ✍ 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate you doing this. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Hi, User:Cplakidas! I hope you are well. Sorry if this disturbs you. I was just wondering when this review will begin? I'm just asking because my schedule will be getting busy in the next few weeks. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Therealscorp1an: sorry for the delay, real life tends to be a bit unpredictable lately. Here are my first comments after a first read-through:

Lede

• was King of Greece two suggestions: one, the title used in the infobox and the succession box is that of 'King of the Hellenes', so some mention of this should be made here; second, perhaps 'the sixth King of Greece'?
• The year before his father ascended the throne Spell out the year, the reader shouldn't have to calculate the date from Paul's age ;)
  • Done.
• becoming the youngest cadet at the time, and after a National Schism during World War I very abrupt change of time and topic. At least split the sentence in two. and 'National Schism' is peculiar to Greece as a term, so 'a National Schism' won't mean much to the average reader. Consider briefly introducing it.
  • Done.
• became the Greek sovereign in 1917 would move the year to the mention of Constantine and Paul's exile
  • Done.
• However, the 1924 Greek republic referendum as the name is Wikipedia's way of describing the event and not a proper name used in historiography, I suggest something like 'However, in 1924 a referendum...' and simply pipe the link there. Ditto for the after the 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, perhaps 'after another referendum in 1935'? Although I would at least add 'after a royalist coup' here, since the referendum was neither free nor fair.
  • Done.
• Paul fought in World War II did he really fight? As heir-apparent he naturally did not have any combat role nor leadership role. Recommend striking this.
  • Done.
• when Greece fell to the Axis Powers add a year at least
• After World War II's conclusion and when George died in 1947, the former is somewhat redundant since 1947 is mentioned, which is clearly after 1945. I would suggest adding two things after After World War II's conclusion: one, that George returned to Greece in 1946 after another referendum, and the outbreak of the civil war.
  • Done.
• The war nonetheless concluded with monarchists defeating communist forces in the country add year and link the communist forces to Democratic Army of Greece
  • Done.
• worked to achieve enosis the term will be unfamiliar to most readers; add a brief explanation, e.g. 'enosis, the union of Cyprus with Greece'
• Give a proper link for 1952 Greek constitution
• During his reign, Paul was commended for his numerous state visits to multiple countries 'commended'? By whom and for what? This is the standard job of a head of state. Something is missing here...
  • Done.
    • This was amended to commended by the media but I don't see anything like this in the article. The text mentions his state visits, but nothing about them being commended, or being particularly successful or his role being singled out. In fact, IIRC the state visit to the UK in 1963 provoked a political crisis and the resignation of Karamanlis as PM. A more nuanced summary of Paul's role in foreign relations is warranted here. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• who became Constantine II add at least that he was the last king of Greece?
  • I see a change to Paul became the final King of Greece this is clearly incorrect. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• I am missing at least two things from the lede (haven't had a chance to look at the main body of the article yet) that are pretty much the most important domestic aspects of his reign: his role in bringing Karamanlis to power and then dismissing him, and his role in the establishment of a nationalist-royalist para-state in Greece during the 1950s.

Early life

• 14 December 1901 Old Style or New Style? Greece did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until February 1923. Ditto for all dates before then.
  • Done.
    • Where did you get the OS date? Put another way, how do you know that 14 December is not the OS date? Plus you should use the dedicated Template:OldStyleDate for the OS/NS dates. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• He trained as an army officer The last male mentioned is Crown Prince Constantine.
  • Done.
• Lieutenant with the Evzones. Does this meant he Palace Guard (now the Presidential Guard) or one of the Evzone regiments?
• Should his military training not be mentioned in chronological order, after references to his birth and early life education? Also, when did this education take place? It is nowhere mentioned again.
• Paul grew up in the Presidential Mansion it was not the Presidential Mansion then.
• a group of Greek officers mounted a coup d'état against his grandfather link to the Goudi coup, and the coup was not as such against George I (though there were elements in it who favoured a republic). This part is contradicted by the article itself when it states right after declared themselves in support of the monarchy
• There is some critical context missing here as to the dismissal of the princes and the otherwise unspecified criticism levelled at Constantine; namely Constantine's role in the 1897 war and the princes establishing cliques around them in the army officer corps.

National Schism

• Constantine wished to keep Greece neutral during the prelude to World War I, but he was accused of supporting the Central Powers this is potentially misleading phrasing; Constantine was supporting the Central Powers, because he believed they would win. His neutrality was because Greece was hopelessly exposed to the Entente navies and an entry into the war would have been disastrous.
• Greek National Schism as noted above, there is no other National Schism, so the 'Greek' is redundant. Some dates would be relevant here as well.
  • Done.
    • Dates? Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Possibly due to "being afraid" of Wilhelm II, Constantine continued to refuse to succumb to Venizelos' demands. This is an opinion and needs to be attributed; and as an opinion it is also rather at odds with scholarship on the matter, e.g. Constantine was pressured to oppose Venizelos by Ioannis Metaxas. Ditto for the caption in the photo saying remained neutral in World War I to appease Wilhelm II.
  • Still the picture presented is misleading and does not reflect scholarly views on Constantine's motives. You have the choice, per WP:SS, of removing this altogether and simply state Constantine's pro-German leanings, or actually go through additional sources and present a nuanced view. Greece during World War I has some insights here. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Link Charles Jonnart
  • Done.
• Constantine officially abdicated this is incorrect; Constantine never officially abdicated, he left behind Alexander as a placeholder of the throne. This is in fact clearly stated further down, Paul wrote that neither his father, Constantine, nor his older brother, George, had ever renounced their rights to the throne...
  • Done.
• replace Greece with a republican system something is missing here...
• though not the eldest son of Constantine, would succeed to the throne. an explanation is needed here, i.e. that George was also seen as pro-German
  • Done.

Exile to Switzerland

• I assume the Kiel Academy is the German Imperial Naval Academy? Please name and link it.
  • Done.
• the German Revolution sprouted can a revolution sprout?
  • Done.
    • A revolution also does not 'arise' normally; 'break out', perhaps? Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• many naval officers began mutinies dubious, afaik the mutinies began by the crews, the officer corps by and large remained loyal to the Kaiser. Cf. (and link) Kiel mutiny.
  • Done.
    • Just by appending 'and their crews' is not enough; this goes to the same as with all the other issues of accuracy in details in the article: I understand the reluctance to delve into details that are not directly relevant to Paul himself, but this is not an excuse for factual inaccuracy. If you want to tighten it up per WP:SS, that is fine, but if you want to go into detail on context, it needs to be correct, and properly researched and referenced. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• At the conclusion of World War I, Greece had made territorial gains over-simplified, but yes, that is correct; but at least mention that these gains were codified in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. to the dismay of the Ottomans is a monumental understatement; add at least something to the effect that there was a war going on between Greece and Kemal's Turkish nationalists.
  • Done.
• During the 1920 Greek legislative election as before, replace the descriptive name with more elegant phrasing}}
• fighting broke out between a sector of monarchists, who protested for Constantine's reascension to the throne, where and when? I am not aware of fighting (ie. a civil war) during the election. And not 'a sector' of monarchists protested for this, there was the so-called 'United Opposition' of all non-Venizelist parties that campaigned for Constantine's return.
• The Greek throne remained vacant while Greece fought in the Greco-Turkish War, during the Turkish War of Independence. Would recommend moving the references to the war earlier, as mentioned, and strike the rest; the vacancy of the throne was not really relevant to the war at this point.
• he requested that Olga Constantinovna of Russia introduce her (Paul's grandmother and queen)
  • Done.

Return to Greece

• On 19 December 1920, feeling safe they did not return because they felt safe, but because royalist parties had taken over...
  • Done.
• They were greeted by protests in support 'demonstrations in support'?
  • Done.
• was criticised by Greece's allies in the concurrent Greco-Turkish war, most of which were also Greece's allies in World War I confusing; 'most of whom'? who were not? nominally Greece was in Anatolia on behalf of the Entente...
• Constantine was denied additional support from the Allies in their war against Turkey 'their war' means 'the Allies' war'...
  • Done.
• allowing Mustafa Kemal to make more territorial gains Kemal did not at this time make any territorial gains against the Greeks; the battles of Inonu did not impinge on the Greek zone of occupation in Anatolia.
  • Done.
    • Per above on matters of detail, just tweaking the wording is not enough. Please take the time to rewrite this section properly. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• following the burning of Smyrna by Turkish troops. Turkey later defeated Greece and their allies Turkey first defeated Greece at the August 1922 offensive, which had the burning of Smyrna as a direct consequence.
  • Done.
    • , who had been suffering since the fall of Smyrna in August 1922 what does this mean? This is vague to the point of irrelevance. Per above, please take the time to rewrite this section properly. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overall, the context of the Greco-Turkish war is very convoluted and over-simplified to the point of containing several inaccuracies. Strongly recommend using a specialist work to rewrite this part. Alternatively, you can condense the whole section into the essential dates (Greek defeat in August 1922 and consequences) and focus on Paul's life during these years.

Yes, it is bound to be simplified. Paul did not play a huge role in that war. This article is about Paul, not said war or another war under his father's reign. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

True, which is why I am perfectly happy to leave you with the option of condensing the section to bare essentials; but over-simplification is not an excuse for factual errors or misleading phrasing, even if it is inadvertent. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Please provide proper referencing for 'The Duke: Portrait of Prince Philip. Written by Tim Heald'. Also, I cannot find the information referenced by this source (e.g. Paul's military education and Sandhurst) in the book.
  • Done.
    • Can you provide some additional details typically given with bibliographic references? Year, location, publisher, OCLC/ISBN? Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hachette 2006, Prevelakis & Η Ελλάδα από το Α έως το Ω: Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος 2011, Schain 2001 are referenced but do not appear in the article.
  • Done.
    • The former were removed, but the referenced section By the end of the civil war, around 158,000 people had been killed and approximately 100,000 to 200,000 civil war refugees were deported by Eastern Bloc nations. remained in place, without a corresponding notice that it is now unreferenced. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• I see a very heavy reliance on Van der Kiste, Hourmouzios and Sáinz de Medrano, who are royal biographers. I don't know the latter, but I know Van der Kiste's work, it tends to be very sympathetic to his royal subjects, quite at odds with historiography on the topic otherwise. Which is something I also see missing here in general. There are plenty of Greek-language and English-language sources on the political events referenced here that would be necessary for context, but they are not used, starting with the go-to Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους and going to more specialist works (e.g. recently Mavrogordatos' works on the National Schism, or Mazower, Close and Iatrides on the civil war, etc etc) Ditto for other events mentioned here, like the Kiel mutiny; Hourmouzios clearly isn't the best source to use to portray these events.
  • Most Greek royal articles do have a big reliance on these sources.
    • Yes, that does not mean it is a satisfactory situation or that it meets WP:RS criteria. The life of a monarch is tied up with the history of his country during his reign; there should be at least a few sources from historians, and not royal biographers, especially on a matter as controversial as the Greek monarchy, whose legacy is mixed to say the least. A very clear example: both Van der Kriste and Hourmouzios state that many of these reports were exaggerated, i.e. the only two sources extensively used in the article and both of them not actually historians nor experts on modern Greek history (John Van der Kiste is primarily writing on royalty and an amateur historian at best, while Hourmouzios was personal secretary to King George II and King Constantine II, so hardly the most unprejudiced author), are used to refute these claims in Wikipedia's own voice, and no sources are examined to check whether they might be correct. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. That is not to say that Van der Kiste and Hourmouzios can not or should not be used; Hourmouzios especially, as to date the only biographer of Paul, is referenced by mainstream historians as well. But judgment and critical view needs to be based on a broad assessment of scholarly opinion. This is missing entirely. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• This source might be useful for some additional details.

Puh, I will stop here. There is a lot to improve, and we are not even half-way into the article. I am willing to shepherd this through section by section, but it will need time. I will continue with the rest of the article once the above comments have been addressed. Constantine ✍ 20:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Mostly done. More to follow. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Have removed the block strike-throughs; I will strike through were issues have been addressed after review. In the meantime, please simply mark the issues you have addressed as done or otherwise reply to any suggestion. That way if an issue needs to be discussed further it can be done. Constantine ✍ 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As of today, there's still a few things unaddressed from my previous review, even though the corresponding sections were originally striken through. It has also become clear that the article, as it stands, is essentially an (unattributed) translation of the equivalent French article, albeit by someone not entirely familiar with French or English (otherwise I cannot explain things like 'une partie de l'armée' becoming 'a precinct of the army'). Translation issues aside, this poses two problems: First, the main author and nominator of the English article obviously has not read the sources for themselves, and has little actual knowledge of Greek history, as is evident from the replies above or some very vague/incorrect formulations that are the result of poor translation evidently made by someone who doesn't know the actual context. Second, as with the French original, there simply are not enough WP:RS by professional, expert historians in the article, nor is it to be expected that they will be included soon, at least without a major rewrite of the article itself to a form that is quite different to the French original. I am therefore failing this nomination at this time. Constantine ✍ 09:39, 8 May 2024 (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.

Paul's Sexuality

Weirdly – particularly given it's 2024 – any mention of Paul's bisexuality, however authoritatively cited, is being removed from the article by royal sycophants. This is especially foolish given it was an important aspect of his personality and relationships, and important to understanding the dynamic of his reign – not least his marriage to the ballbreaking fascist Frederika, who effectively set the majority of the country against the monarchy. The Henry Channon diaries unequivocally and matter of factly detail Paul's bisexuality, and should be used a source (e.g.Henry 'Chips' Chanon: The Diaries 1938-43, Penguin, London 2022, fn429.), but there are other good sources as well. He was basically a bisexual rake in his youth. Excluding mention of the nature of his sexuality paints a false picture of the man, and his life. 120.148.165.123 (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)