This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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.
Should the League of Corinth foundation date (338 BC) be included in the country infobox for Greece under the heading "Union of City States as Hellenic League"? -- Michail ( blah) 18:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The history of Greece encompasses the history of the territory of the modern nation state of Greece as well as that of the Greek people and the areas they inhabited and ruled historically. The scope of Greek habitation and rule has varied throughout the ages and as a result the history of Greece is similarly elastic in what it includes.
That the wording implies that, in 383 BC, all Greek city-states were united under a common banner into a single entity called the Hellenic League - this is untrue.This is not even the case here. Obviously the Greek unions and leagues didn't encompass all of the Greek political entities of that time, just like how the Italian leagues didn't encompass every one of the Italian entities or even all of Italy's modern-day territories. The case is that the date of formation of the greek leagues and unions of the past mark the establishment of the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece, which in chronological order, is preceding the modern-day state and is pivotal part of the nation's history, marking the first unified statehood by modern terms.
There is no legal continuum between the state which we know as the Hellenic League and the state of Greece.This is true, but the formation section is not about constitutions for it to be used strictly in cases where there is only legal continuum. There are limited cases of ancient statehoods whose the formation wasn't marked by the creation of Constitutions, yet their formation notes past forms of the nation's statehood. Formation dates are not meant to be an indicator of legal continuum between modern entity and past entities this nation has formed. The formation of statehood is different than the constitution and legality and the one should not be confused with the other. Greece existed as a league in the past, while today exists as an ethnic state. The only difference between the present time and the past eras, is that in the past, the concept of ethnic states didn't exist, while today the concept of leagues is outdated and no longer exists. Greece however existed back then, and still exists today.
There is precedent in Wikipedia where states with ancient histories do not include ancient versions of the state in their infobox., this argument is not true. If one editor is to look carefully at the dates, they cound notice how the Ancient History covers everything in the 3,000 BC - 500 AD period. The infoboxes of both Italy and Egypt do contain formation dates that fall under the Ancient period. So the argument used here is not true, as there is clearly a precedent in Wikipedia where country infobox contain formation dates from ancient era. -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
"The concept of Greece is an ancient one" and "no such separation exists" is not the standard for country articles in the infobox. This content is discussed in the article's history sections but we list the date of the modern state's founding in the infobox. This completely indefensible non-encyclopedic content dating the founding of the Greek State to 338 BC was removed [1] in what should have been a completely non-controversial removal, which as now been reverted multiple times by Dr.K.. Seraphim System ( talk</spahttps://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Greece&diff=443001904&oldid=442901300n>) 06:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
multiple times? I reverted exactly as many times as you did. Two. You piggyback on other editors to prolong edit wars and create instability in articles, which you then invoke. Cute. With your edit-warring record, I would be much more careful. As far as the removal, it is non-controversial according to your edit-warring POV. That doesn't count for much. Dr. K. 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
clear linear progression, that's just instruction creep and ignores the clear historical relevance of the Corinthian League. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece.. It is obvious that the first instance of a unified Greece was not completely inclusive of all its later member states. Think of the EU before you go again down this path. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this for Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please provide us with some sources for your claim. "Union of City States as Hellenic League" is grossly misleading, some of the most important city-states were not part of the League. -- Michail ( blah) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved the following out of the "case for" and "case against" sections above. There is a reason there's a section here called "threaded discussion"; please use it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You say that it's not a necessity for all constituent parts to be part of the union in order for the date to be a valid predecessor to the modern state, but that is not supported by what is actually displayed in the infoboxes. In the one you brought up, Egypt, it is the date of the union of upper and lower Egypt into a single state encompassing all of Egypt. In the case of China it is the date of the union of all the warring states into a single state encompassing all of China, and in the case of Japan it is the date of the union of all the states into a single state encompassing all of Japan.Nope. None of these aforementioned states have the same borders and territories today as they had back then. If you compare the maps of that era with the modern day borders that were defined by modern treaties, you can clearly notice how they are not the same and large chunks of territories are lost/obtained over time, and thus, resulting to the states we know today.
Why are you bringing up Constitutions? I never referred to Constitutions, I referred to legitimate authority. The reason why the China or Japan articles (and, to an extent Egypt since you brought it up) list their ancient founding date is because there is a linear progression of succession of legitimate authority from that date to the present day. This is simply not the case here, where we are talking about a league that existed for 15 years, followed by a gap of 2,200 years, and then the creation of Greece.To argue that Egypt or the other countries had a continuous progression of succession of legitimacy from that date to the present day, cannot be more wrong than ever. See for example Egypt. Egypt was under Ottoman rule for centuries, and the Ottoman rule does not exactly make Upper and Lower Egypt a direct successor to the modern state of Egypt. See Ottoman Egypt for more info.
Yes, it's true that Egypt includes 3,1050 BC. But you do not need to dive into the semantics of "ancient". Obviously in my argument "ancient history" in the case of Italy refers to ancient Rome, and its absence from the infobox. The gravitas that goes with Egypt and its ancient kingdom does not even compare to the Hellenic League, and it feeds into the argument above vis-a-vis continuum. There simply is not an argument for historical continuity between the League of Corinth and modern Greece. The precedent to follow here is Italy or Israel.but to bring the Roman Empire (which held non-Italian territories and wasn't representing only its Italian subjects) as argument on whether a Greek league (which held most of Greece's territory and had only Greek subjects) shall be in the infobox, is just poor effort to compare an apple with an orange. The Empire of Rome is not on Italy's infobox, as is the case with the Empire of Greeks which for the same reasons explained above, (encompassing non-Greek territories and had non-Greek subjects) is not in Greece's infobox. Now, regarding Egypt, I am sorry but this is merely your opinion, not a fact. The fact here is that the unions or leagues are encompassing a majority of the territory that falls within the present day borders, as are the case of Upper and Lower Egypt and the Italian league. To see that the Upper & Lower Egypt and the Italian League are somehow considered by you to be valid for Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes, yet to deny the same standard for other countries such as Greece and its Greek league, only is bound to cause an issue of POV and double standards in Wikipedia and I am sure we do not want this to happen. We will have to follow the same rationale for all articles in Wikipedia regarding formation dates. This means either 1) to have the Greek league date added on Greece's infobox, or 2) have the Upper and Lower Egypts and Italian leagues removed from Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes respectively. Simple as that. -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I won't be contributing to the discussion section any more, I've made my points clear. I might reply if there is a new argument, but it's all circling at this point. There's apparently all this evidence of how the League is the predecessor of Greece, and we haven't seen a single source to support this [apart from the single source that is cited in the article, which talks about the ancient league, not its relevance to the Greek state's formation]. Additionally, I have to protest the addition of SilentResident's comments to the 'for' section, which are obvious responses to my points in the for section, while my addendum, responding to his points, was removed. Dr. K calls this a "suppression", I call this inbalance. No one is going to read through a gazillion messages to find my response to the points raised by SilentResident, which are at a prominent location. His points are not "complimentary" as Dr. K. calls them, they are direct responses to my points made in the for section. Dr. K also needs to start assuming some good faith, because apparently I "have no respect". -- Michail ( blah) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, just because Italy was repeatedly mentioned as a case for comparison in the discussion above: That article, until very recently, had a long-standing status quo with a "formation" list starting with unification in the 19th century. It was expanded backwards only a few days ago, and I restored it back to sanity just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm not categorically against mentioning 338 BCE in the infobox, but absolutely not the way it currently does. While this was certainly an inspiration for the modern Greek nationalist movement within the Ottoman Empire, there was not continuity (although there was population continuity). It was not an event in the formation of the modern Greek state, and should not be under a "formation" section.-- Calthinus ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In the period 1840-1880, but also later, the Megali Idea, for territorial, political, cultural, historical completion and unity becomes an core concept of Greek romanticism, but also due to the trife and vision for a Greece territorially and culturally complete, which would include both the city-states of ancient Greece but also the lands of the later Byzantine Empire. Greek romanticism is transferred to the political scene with the wide array of meanings that the Megali Idea entails, as political practice, and as a re-linking to classical antiquity. Further, it burdens modern hellenism with the duty of spreading the ancient Greek ideals [...] The new kingdom, in the minds of politicians and intellectuals, is reborn lawfully, in order to defend the characteristics of its race and the spread of its classical heritage. This idea is adopted by everyone and motivates political and intellectual developments throught the latter half of the 19th century [...] In the context of irredentist policy, [the University of Athens] tries to unite a common set of beliefs and attempts to get recognised a new reading of the historical continuity of hellenism from antiquity "until the modern years".
— Haido Barkoula, The construction of the national identity in 19th century Greece. Irredentism and Diplomacy. The example of Al. P. Ragavis.
Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league.... That's all. Dr. K. 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league and Greek romantic nationalism, but there is actual bibliography to support this.. Quoting you, or referring to the points you have made on this thread, does not constitute a personal attack. You did dismiss my point regarding romantic nationalism. You said in response
when you advance a position that somehow your interlocutor is associated with something as silly as romanticism, or whatever happens to be the dig at the time, then this is an attempt at making your interlocutor look bad. Romantic nationalism is a legitimate historiographical concern. You chose to interpret this as an attack on you personally. I suggest you read that page, and in particular what constitutes a personal attack if you think me bringing it up was somehow aimed at you and not at the concept. Not once did I mention your name, or allude to you. I said that the quote was pertinent to the discussion. You on the other hand have consistently tried to make this a personal attack and have said that I make
sloppy digs, that me bringing up the legitimate topic of romantic nationalism is
an attempt at making [you] look bad, and that I have
a proven record of attacks. I fail to see how anything I've said is a personal attack on you. You have consistently advanced the view that not only do I make personal attacks, but that I
cannot have a discussion with someone without alluding to ulterior or nepharious motives.You have also consistently used sarcastic language to imply I have bad faith. If I'm talking about something you have said, I will mention your name so people whow who/what to look for. If you do not stop with the defamatory accusations I will seek administrator mediation. -- Michail ( blah) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to avoid direct confrontation against co-editors and focus on content: you're the one that brought it up by name. This is probably also the fifth time I've asked for historiographical somes sources to support the claim that Greece is directly descended from the League. -- Michail ( blah) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
As Tsoukalas also argues (2002) the Hellenism of modern Greece was largely imposed on it by Western Europeans while modern Greece had more to do with the Orient culturally and politically.
— Triandafyllidou, Anna; Gropas, Ruby (2015-11-03). What is Europe?. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 9781137560650.
The Greeks of the time and subsequent decades renovated their nation on the premise that they were, in terms, of language and culture, the descendants of the ancient Greeks and that there has been a continuity of the Greek langage and culture since antiquity in the historical Greek lands; which raised at the time and still raises many eyebrows in the West as well as in the East. [...] Indeed, this founding national myth has been successful in convincing the descendants of the non Greek-speaking groups, no less than Greek-speaking ones of the historical Greek lands, that their claim to cultural descent from the Greeks was not only irrefutable; it has proved a powerful adhesive force, which held the nation together, and has produced substantial cultural achievements in the space of less than two centuries.
— Koliopoulos, John S.; Veremis, Thanos M. (2009-10-27). Modern Greece: A History since 1821. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444314830.
The national entity, defined through the alternative use of the terms 'Hellenism', 'the Greek people' or 'the Greeks' and 'Greece', is considered as given outside the context of history and of geography. The use of the term Hellenism helps the historical narrative to avoid obvious anachronisms and contradictions, while indirectly presenting the Greek nation as everlasting. This a-temporal and anthropomorphic subject is transcending both geography and history, since it is used to define the Greeks from the Minoan times all the way through to the eighteenth century. It thus serves as a basis for the valorization of events, acts and cultures over time.
— Dragonas, Thalia; Birtek, Faruk (2004-08-02). Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey. Routledge. ISBN 9781134277100.
As a result, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Greek national myth settled on a direct line of ancestry linking the contemporary Greek nation-state with the heroes of Greek mythology, classical antiquity, the Hellenistic period, the transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and the period of oppression under the Ottoman Empire.
— Blaschke, Jochen (2005). Nation-state Building Processes and Cultural Diversity. Edition Parabolis. ISBN 9783884023327.
with [Macedon] uniting the Greek world in the League of Corinth (also known as the Hellenic League or Greek League) under the guidance of Phillip II, who was elected the leader of the first unified Greek state in history. Nowhere does it state that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the modern Greek state, or that the modern Greek state can trace its roots to that. This assertion is pure Wikipedia:Original Research. I remind everyone again that the subject of the infobox is the country of Greece, not Greek culture. -- Michail ( blah) 15:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we speak of a Greek nation [in the context of ancient Greece]? Greece, as we all know, was never united until the Roman conquest within a single entity; consequently there can be no history of Greece in the sense that there is a history of Rome. But the concept of a Greek nation trying to realise itself (and failing) has been adopted by many historians as the most fruitful criterion for interpreting the kaleidoscopic relations of the Greek cities. [...] 'Particularism', we read, 'was the hereditary curse of the Greek people.' Athens, Sparta, Macedon, and the third-century Confederations, with their 'republican movement', were the successive incarnations of this spirit of national unity striving to be born. Each in turn proved abortive [...]. But the other suppodedly great moment of Greek unification - the setting up of the League of Corinth by Philip II after Chaeronea - very soon became the centre of polemic. For in proportion as the stock of Philip and Isocrates rose, the reputation of Demosthenes fell, until he began to look like a petty and narrow patriot [...].For the urge towards the autonomy of the polis was a force working against, and not in the direction of, Hellenic unity; and in an acute and pessimistic study Ferrabino demonstrated that this liberty, admitting no restraint, and developing whenever circumstances allowed into domination over others, was the one really potent factor in Greek history. [...] Panhellenism and the crusade against Persia [...] had no more to do with a united Greek nation than had the anti-Macedonian coalition [...]. The conclusion seemed to be that the Greeks had a weak or ineffective national sense [...].
— Walbank, Frank W. (2010-08-26), Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521136808, retrieved 2018-09-08
With 10 votes ( Michail, DGG, Constantine, Fut.Perf., Icewhiz, Mathglot, Macrakis, Pincrete, Calthinus, T*U) in favor and 5 votes against ( Dr.K., AlbusTheWhite, SilentResident, Khirurg, Alexikoua), the new consensus here is that an an event of the very distant past which has no direct relation to the formation of the modern Greek state, shall not be in the infobox about that modern state. I could say, while the issue of whether ancient dates of union/league formations could be in infobox is addressed in the case of Greece, still it has not been addressed in the case of articles of many other mediterranean and balkan countries in the broader region. Alexikoua is correct that we could deal with the issue as whole and not selectively as to avoid double standards, a point which I find myself agreeing with. The question is, given that the RfC was only about Greece and not about every country infobox, how could we deal with similar cases on other topic articles about the Mediterranean region? Could a RFC be opened in every one of them? Or shall we open a discussion on a main talk thread/ discussion board where this can be scrutinized and catholic decissions are taken? The discussion logically, should be about the "Formation" section in infoboxes and the inclusion of dates other than the state's founding dates.
With consensus being clearly in favor of the date's removal, the article should be updated accordingly. @ Robert McClenon:, shall we have to wait 30 days before any update is made to the article in accordance with it, or does the solid consensus that has already been formed thus far, suffice already? -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 08:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Also note that per WP:CCC
proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive, even if you propose to change said consensus by changing the guidelines of the infobox. -- Michail ( blah) 10:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
During the Paleologi dynasty (1261–1453) a new era of Greek patriotism emerged accompanied by a turning back to ancient Greeceare directly linked to this debate. This needs additional citations, as an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. -- Michail ( blah) 23:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Does this need to be formally closed? The debate has died down and there is a clear 2:1 consensus for removal. -- Michail ( blah) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This reversal is quite frankly ridiculous. What is there to talk about? We have talked about it before, and all that's happened is more images were added - there were 77 and now there are 80 (not including galleries). As of its restored version, it has pictures left and right, disrupting the text, including numerous instances of sandwiching, as well as 3 overhanging images past the last section which push the references down and leave a white gap almost the entire length of my computer screen - and I have a big computer screen. I await to hear exactly how it is proposed this article is fixed, apart from removing images. In the meantime it should be downgraded to 'C' class. -- Michail ( blah) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't know the policies in as much detail about everyone else, is there a policy about images from other websites with website names and URLS still visible in the image? I think it is a bit like using the article to promote the website so maybe this type of image could be removed if everyone agrees that is not what is encyclopedic purpose?
SemperDissolubilis (
talk) 00:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy that it is easy to add but difficult to remove. Maybe best next step will be if objecting to Michail's choices then to implement suggestions about dual images and make adjustments based on input so far received. Then it may be easier to get a consensus maybe or everyone continues trying to guess how to fix objections? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SemperDissolubilis (
talk •
contribs) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I wanted to say is that the number of photos by 26 February 2019 seems to be a little bit large. At least to me. In my opinion all these photos is something too much for an article concerning a country. Fewer images would do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It is good to put in the infobox that, before the independence from ottoman empire, Greece was united for first time under Alexander the Great and his hegemony. Vasiagrgr ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Twice now [4] [5], User:Thenabster126 has inserted claims about Greece sharing "maritime borders" with countries such as Italy, Libya or Cyprus. It doesn't. The only meaningful concept of "maritime boundaries" is boundaries of territorial waters, and Greece doesn't share such boundaries with any other country except Albania and Turkey. The only boundaries it has with other countries further afield are those of Exclusive economic zones or Continental shelf zones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This article ( List of countries and territories by land and maritime borders) states that it shares maritime borders with other countries. You would have to do the same with other pages for countries where it mentions maritime borders. What do you mean by boundaries? It shares borders with more than just those 2. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I hope that definition is cleared up for Maritime borders. Thenabster126 ( talk) 04:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
According to recent official data of the European Commission (2015), the area of Greece is 132,049 sq kms
Sources of information: - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/factsheets/pdf/el_en.pdf - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-indicators/context/2017/full-text_en.pdf - https://kundoc.com/pdf-geographies-of-crisis-in-greece-a-social-well-being-approach-.html - https://docplayer.net/102295236-Production-guide-greece.html (Hellenic Film Production)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.232.12.151 (
talk) 07:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The term "illegal immigrants" is used to describe refugees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.0.15 ( talk) 05:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It states in the article that Greece is a part of the Balkans, although this is disputed be Geographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinan Blueje ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is this page a separate page from Third Hellenic Republic? Idiacanthus 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no logical reason why there is no mention of the work of Yorgos Lanthimos in the brief summary of Greek Cinema. AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 01:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Η Ελλάδα (στην καθαρεύουσα Ελλάς), με επίσημη συνταγματική ονομασία Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, είναι χώρα της νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης στο νοτιότερο άκρο της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου. Συνορεύει στα βορειοδυτικά με την Αλβανία, στα βόρεια με τη Βόρεια Μακεδονία και τη Βουλγαρία και στα βορειοανατολικά με την Τουρκία. Έχει ακτές στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και βρέχεται ανατολικά από το Αιγαίο, δυτικά από το Ιόνιο και νότια από το Λιβυκό. Η Ελλάδα κατέχει την 11η θέση στις χώρες με τη μεγαλύτερη ακτογραμμή στα 13.676 χιλιόμετρα, καθώς έχει πλήθος νησιών που υπολογίζεται, αναλόγως τα κριτήρια, στα 2.500 με τα 165 έως 227 να είναι κατοικήσιμα. Βρίσκεται στην 97η θέση στην κατάταξη των χωρών του κόσμου σύμφωνα με την έκτασή τους. Ο πληθυσμός της χώρας την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2017 εκτιμήθηκε ότι ήταν 10.757.300, σύμφωνα με τις επίσημες εκτιμήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Στατιστικής Υπηρεσίας.[6] Η πρωτεύουσα της, και συγχρόνως η μεγαλύτερη πόλη της, είναι η Αθήνα. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uavmete ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I find the selection of some of the images representing some section at least unthoughtful. For example how could Greek cuisine be represented by am exterior view of a a taverna building and not a dish. Also Mikis Theodorakis picture should represent him at the height of his music career not at his later age. Finally a better opinion of the Byzantine Era and its art could be made with the picture of the mosaics at the dome of Hagia Sophia church rather than again an exterior view of the building with its surrounding modern area. – AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 00:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings everybody, so I am just restating my previous proposal for an update of some dated and repetitve pictures (some are low quality others are simply not the best way to represent the text that accompanies them). I believe that the images of Angelokastro and Agia Sofia in Thessaloniki are the most striking examples. Because Angelokastro's role in Greek history although important it is basically regional and does not correspond to what was happenng in the Greek peninsula as a whole during that area and as far as Agia Sofia is concerned I beleieve taht the main reason that this picture was chosen was a cheap substitute to Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, however, the main problem is the alterations that it received during the Ottoman era so it is not the best example of Byzantine architecture in Greece in comparison to Hosios Loukas who remains largely intact since the age of its construction. I understand that I might come out as irritating to some and for that I am sorry but I believe that this issue deserves at least a discussion and not a snub without a second thought. Finally I am also sorry to those that I somehow might offend with this (I seriously do not understand the reasons). And lastly I suggest a section that references the Biodiversity of Greece like other similar articles in the site.
AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 18:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that the image depicting 'the territorial evolution of the Kingdom of Greece from 1832 to 1947' is full of inaccuracies.
It'd be better if all the unnecessary Greek-to-English transliterations were removed. The infobox should deliver clear, useful and comprehensive information. -- 91.140.88.224 ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
صةيأإوضاتعغثلنرزةسووىيصظعئؤصيشررذخجحئ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.131.176.5 ( talk) 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Griekenland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of North Greece. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand that we don't want lead sentence bloat, but readers expect to see the common native name, plus a transliteration and pronunciation directly after the English name of a country. Obviously Greece has several names which should be discussed, but I think at least Ελλάδα needs to be in the lead sentence. If not visible outright, then using footnote templates. C.f. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.@ Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Julia ☺ 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
demonym =
AzaanDeen ( talk) 07:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"due the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" → "due to the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" 80.3.103.8 ( talk) 13:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
With respect to wikipedia article convention, I think it is clear that images must be located within the boundaries of the country that the article is about. Clearly the image of the Alexander the Great mosaic in the 'Archaic and Classical' period subsection is outside of Greece (located in Pompeii, Italy). I recommend dropping it for consistency sake and to avoid confusion. Kromid ( talk) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ancient greece used cars to make egyptain pryamids Waffle1212 ( talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed the GDP figures are outdated based on the latest IMF data released on the same source cited within the article (namely https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=174,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.142.30 ( talk) 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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.
Should the League of Corinth foundation date (338 BC) be included in the country infobox for Greece under the heading "Union of City States as Hellenic League"? -- Michail ( blah) 18:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The history of Greece encompasses the history of the territory of the modern nation state of Greece as well as that of the Greek people and the areas they inhabited and ruled historically. The scope of Greek habitation and rule has varied throughout the ages and as a result the history of Greece is similarly elastic in what it includes.
That the wording implies that, in 383 BC, all Greek city-states were united under a common banner into a single entity called the Hellenic League - this is untrue.This is not even the case here. Obviously the Greek unions and leagues didn't encompass all of the Greek political entities of that time, just like how the Italian leagues didn't encompass every one of the Italian entities or even all of Italy's modern-day territories. The case is that the date of formation of the greek leagues and unions of the past mark the establishment of the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece, which in chronological order, is preceding the modern-day state and is pivotal part of the nation's history, marking the first unified statehood by modern terms.
There is no legal continuum between the state which we know as the Hellenic League and the state of Greece.This is true, but the formation section is not about constitutions for it to be used strictly in cases where there is only legal continuum. There are limited cases of ancient statehoods whose the formation wasn't marked by the creation of Constitutions, yet their formation notes past forms of the nation's statehood. Formation dates are not meant to be an indicator of legal continuum between modern entity and past entities this nation has formed. The formation of statehood is different than the constitution and legality and the one should not be confused with the other. Greece existed as a league in the past, while today exists as an ethnic state. The only difference between the present time and the past eras, is that in the past, the concept of ethnic states didn't exist, while today the concept of leagues is outdated and no longer exists. Greece however existed back then, and still exists today.
There is precedent in Wikipedia where states with ancient histories do not include ancient versions of the state in their infobox., this argument is not true. If one editor is to look carefully at the dates, they cound notice how the Ancient History covers everything in the 3,000 BC - 500 AD period. The infoboxes of both Italy and Egypt do contain formation dates that fall under the Ancient period. So the argument used here is not true, as there is clearly a precedent in Wikipedia where country infobox contain formation dates from ancient era. -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
"The concept of Greece is an ancient one" and "no such separation exists" is not the standard for country articles in the infobox. This content is discussed in the article's history sections but we list the date of the modern state's founding in the infobox. This completely indefensible non-encyclopedic content dating the founding of the Greek State to 338 BC was removed [1] in what should have been a completely non-controversial removal, which as now been reverted multiple times by Dr.K.. Seraphim System ( talk</spahttps://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Greece&diff=443001904&oldid=442901300n>) 06:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
multiple times? I reverted exactly as many times as you did. Two. You piggyback on other editors to prolong edit wars and create instability in articles, which you then invoke. Cute. With your edit-warring record, I would be much more careful. As far as the removal, it is non-controversial according to your edit-warring POV. That doesn't count for much. Dr. K. 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
clear linear progression, that's just instruction creep and ignores the clear historical relevance of the Corinthian League. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece.. It is obvious that the first instance of a unified Greece was not completely inclusive of all its later member states. Think of the EU before you go again down this path. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I've listed this for Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please provide us with some sources for your claim. "Union of City States as Hellenic League" is grossly misleading, some of the most important city-states were not part of the League. -- Michail ( blah) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved the following out of the "case for" and "case against" sections above. There is a reason there's a section here called "threaded discussion"; please use it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You say that it's not a necessity for all constituent parts to be part of the union in order for the date to be a valid predecessor to the modern state, but that is not supported by what is actually displayed in the infoboxes. In the one you brought up, Egypt, it is the date of the union of upper and lower Egypt into a single state encompassing all of Egypt. In the case of China it is the date of the union of all the warring states into a single state encompassing all of China, and in the case of Japan it is the date of the union of all the states into a single state encompassing all of Japan.Nope. None of these aforementioned states have the same borders and territories today as they had back then. If you compare the maps of that era with the modern day borders that were defined by modern treaties, you can clearly notice how they are not the same and large chunks of territories are lost/obtained over time, and thus, resulting to the states we know today.
Why are you bringing up Constitutions? I never referred to Constitutions, I referred to legitimate authority. The reason why the China or Japan articles (and, to an extent Egypt since you brought it up) list their ancient founding date is because there is a linear progression of succession of legitimate authority from that date to the present day. This is simply not the case here, where we are talking about a league that existed for 15 years, followed by a gap of 2,200 years, and then the creation of Greece.To argue that Egypt or the other countries had a continuous progression of succession of legitimacy from that date to the present day, cannot be more wrong than ever. See for example Egypt. Egypt was under Ottoman rule for centuries, and the Ottoman rule does not exactly make Upper and Lower Egypt a direct successor to the modern state of Egypt. See Ottoman Egypt for more info.
Yes, it's true that Egypt includes 3,1050 BC. But you do not need to dive into the semantics of "ancient". Obviously in my argument "ancient history" in the case of Italy refers to ancient Rome, and its absence from the infobox. The gravitas that goes with Egypt and its ancient kingdom does not even compare to the Hellenic League, and it feeds into the argument above vis-a-vis continuum. There simply is not an argument for historical continuity between the League of Corinth and modern Greece. The precedent to follow here is Italy or Israel.but to bring the Roman Empire (which held non-Italian territories and wasn't representing only its Italian subjects) as argument on whether a Greek league (which held most of Greece's territory and had only Greek subjects) shall be in the infobox, is just poor effort to compare an apple with an orange. The Empire of Rome is not on Italy's infobox, as is the case with the Empire of Greeks which for the same reasons explained above, (encompassing non-Greek territories and had non-Greek subjects) is not in Greece's infobox. Now, regarding Egypt, I am sorry but this is merely your opinion, not a fact. The fact here is that the unions or leagues are encompassing a majority of the territory that falls within the present day borders, as are the case of Upper and Lower Egypt and the Italian league. To see that the Upper & Lower Egypt and the Italian League are somehow considered by you to be valid for Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes, yet to deny the same standard for other countries such as Greece and its Greek league, only is bound to cause an issue of POV and double standards in Wikipedia and I am sure we do not want this to happen. We will have to follow the same rationale for all articles in Wikipedia regarding formation dates. This means either 1) to have the Greek league date added on Greece's infobox, or 2) have the Upper and Lower Egypts and Italian leagues removed from Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes respectively. Simple as that. -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I won't be contributing to the discussion section any more, I've made my points clear. I might reply if there is a new argument, but it's all circling at this point. There's apparently all this evidence of how the League is the predecessor of Greece, and we haven't seen a single source to support this [apart from the single source that is cited in the article, which talks about the ancient league, not its relevance to the Greek state's formation]. Additionally, I have to protest the addition of SilentResident's comments to the 'for' section, which are obvious responses to my points in the for section, while my addendum, responding to his points, was removed. Dr. K calls this a "suppression", I call this inbalance. No one is going to read through a gazillion messages to find my response to the points raised by SilentResident, which are at a prominent location. His points are not "complimentary" as Dr. K. calls them, they are direct responses to my points made in the for section. Dr. K also needs to start assuming some good faith, because apparently I "have no respect". -- Michail ( blah) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, just because Italy was repeatedly mentioned as a case for comparison in the discussion above: That article, until very recently, had a long-standing status quo with a "formation" list starting with unification in the 19th century. It was expanded backwards only a few days ago, and I restored it back to sanity just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm not categorically against mentioning 338 BCE in the infobox, but absolutely not the way it currently does. While this was certainly an inspiration for the modern Greek nationalist movement within the Ottoman Empire, there was not continuity (although there was population continuity). It was not an event in the formation of the modern Greek state, and should not be under a "formation" section.-- Calthinus ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In the period 1840-1880, but also later, the Megali Idea, for territorial, political, cultural, historical completion and unity becomes an core concept of Greek romanticism, but also due to the trife and vision for a Greece territorially and culturally complete, which would include both the city-states of ancient Greece but also the lands of the later Byzantine Empire. Greek romanticism is transferred to the political scene with the wide array of meanings that the Megali Idea entails, as political practice, and as a re-linking to classical antiquity. Further, it burdens modern hellenism with the duty of spreading the ancient Greek ideals [...] The new kingdom, in the minds of politicians and intellectuals, is reborn lawfully, in order to defend the characteristics of its race and the spread of its classical heritage. This idea is adopted by everyone and motivates political and intellectual developments throught the latter half of the 19th century [...] In the context of irredentist policy, [the University of Athens] tries to unite a common set of beliefs and attempts to get recognised a new reading of the historical continuity of hellenism from antiquity "until the modern years".
— Haido Barkoula, The construction of the national identity in 19th century Greece. Irredentism and Diplomacy. The example of Al. P. Ragavis.
Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league.... That's all. Dr. K. 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league and Greek romantic nationalism, but there is actual bibliography to support this.. Quoting you, or referring to the points you have made on this thread, does not constitute a personal attack. You did dismiss my point regarding romantic nationalism. You said in response
when you advance a position that somehow your interlocutor is associated with something as silly as romanticism, or whatever happens to be the dig at the time, then this is an attempt at making your interlocutor look bad. Romantic nationalism is a legitimate historiographical concern. You chose to interpret this as an attack on you personally. I suggest you read that page, and in particular what constitutes a personal attack if you think me bringing it up was somehow aimed at you and not at the concept. Not once did I mention your name, or allude to you. I said that the quote was pertinent to the discussion. You on the other hand have consistently tried to make this a personal attack and have said that I make
sloppy digs, that me bringing up the legitimate topic of romantic nationalism is
an attempt at making [you] look bad, and that I have
a proven record of attacks. I fail to see how anything I've said is a personal attack on you. You have consistently advanced the view that not only do I make personal attacks, but that I
cannot have a discussion with someone without alluding to ulterior or nepharious motives.You have also consistently used sarcastic language to imply I have bad faith. If I'm talking about something you have said, I will mention your name so people whow who/what to look for. If you do not stop with the defamatory accusations I will seek administrator mediation. -- Michail ( blah) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to avoid direct confrontation against co-editors and focus on content: you're the one that brought it up by name. This is probably also the fifth time I've asked for historiographical somes sources to support the claim that Greece is directly descended from the League. -- Michail ( blah) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
As Tsoukalas also argues (2002) the Hellenism of modern Greece was largely imposed on it by Western Europeans while modern Greece had more to do with the Orient culturally and politically.
— Triandafyllidou, Anna; Gropas, Ruby (2015-11-03). What is Europe?. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 9781137560650.
The Greeks of the time and subsequent decades renovated their nation on the premise that they were, in terms, of language and culture, the descendants of the ancient Greeks and that there has been a continuity of the Greek langage and culture since antiquity in the historical Greek lands; which raised at the time and still raises many eyebrows in the West as well as in the East. [...] Indeed, this founding national myth has been successful in convincing the descendants of the non Greek-speaking groups, no less than Greek-speaking ones of the historical Greek lands, that their claim to cultural descent from the Greeks was not only irrefutable; it has proved a powerful adhesive force, which held the nation together, and has produced substantial cultural achievements in the space of less than two centuries.
— Koliopoulos, John S.; Veremis, Thanos M. (2009-10-27). Modern Greece: A History since 1821. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444314830.
The national entity, defined through the alternative use of the terms 'Hellenism', 'the Greek people' or 'the Greeks' and 'Greece', is considered as given outside the context of history and of geography. The use of the term Hellenism helps the historical narrative to avoid obvious anachronisms and contradictions, while indirectly presenting the Greek nation as everlasting. This a-temporal and anthropomorphic subject is transcending both geography and history, since it is used to define the Greeks from the Minoan times all the way through to the eighteenth century. It thus serves as a basis for the valorization of events, acts and cultures over time.
— Dragonas, Thalia; Birtek, Faruk (2004-08-02). Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey. Routledge. ISBN 9781134277100.
As a result, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Greek national myth settled on a direct line of ancestry linking the contemporary Greek nation-state with the heroes of Greek mythology, classical antiquity, the Hellenistic period, the transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and the period of oppression under the Ottoman Empire.
— Blaschke, Jochen (2005). Nation-state Building Processes and Cultural Diversity. Edition Parabolis. ISBN 9783884023327.
with [Macedon] uniting the Greek world in the League of Corinth (also known as the Hellenic League or Greek League) under the guidance of Phillip II, who was elected the leader of the first unified Greek state in history. Nowhere does it state that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the modern Greek state, or that the modern Greek state can trace its roots to that. This assertion is pure Wikipedia:Original Research. I remind everyone again that the subject of the infobox is the country of Greece, not Greek culture. -- Michail ( blah) 15:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we speak of a Greek nation [in the context of ancient Greece]? Greece, as we all know, was never united until the Roman conquest within a single entity; consequently there can be no history of Greece in the sense that there is a history of Rome. But the concept of a Greek nation trying to realise itself (and failing) has been adopted by many historians as the most fruitful criterion for interpreting the kaleidoscopic relations of the Greek cities. [...] 'Particularism', we read, 'was the hereditary curse of the Greek people.' Athens, Sparta, Macedon, and the third-century Confederations, with their 'republican movement', were the successive incarnations of this spirit of national unity striving to be born. Each in turn proved abortive [...]. But the other suppodedly great moment of Greek unification - the setting up of the League of Corinth by Philip II after Chaeronea - very soon became the centre of polemic. For in proportion as the stock of Philip and Isocrates rose, the reputation of Demosthenes fell, until he began to look like a petty and narrow patriot [...].For the urge towards the autonomy of the polis was a force working against, and not in the direction of, Hellenic unity; and in an acute and pessimistic study Ferrabino demonstrated that this liberty, admitting no restraint, and developing whenever circumstances allowed into domination over others, was the one really potent factor in Greek history. [...] Panhellenism and the crusade against Persia [...] had no more to do with a united Greek nation than had the anti-Macedonian coalition [...]. The conclusion seemed to be that the Greeks had a weak or ineffective national sense [...].
— Walbank, Frank W. (2010-08-26), Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521136808, retrieved 2018-09-08
With 10 votes ( Michail, DGG, Constantine, Fut.Perf., Icewhiz, Mathglot, Macrakis, Pincrete, Calthinus, T*U) in favor and 5 votes against ( Dr.K., AlbusTheWhite, SilentResident, Khirurg, Alexikoua), the new consensus here is that an an event of the very distant past which has no direct relation to the formation of the modern Greek state, shall not be in the infobox about that modern state. I could say, while the issue of whether ancient dates of union/league formations could be in infobox is addressed in the case of Greece, still it has not been addressed in the case of articles of many other mediterranean and balkan countries in the broader region. Alexikoua is correct that we could deal with the issue as whole and not selectively as to avoid double standards, a point which I find myself agreeing with. The question is, given that the RfC was only about Greece and not about every country infobox, how could we deal with similar cases on other topic articles about the Mediterranean region? Could a RFC be opened in every one of them? Or shall we open a discussion on a main talk thread/ discussion board where this can be scrutinized and catholic decissions are taken? The discussion logically, should be about the "Formation" section in infoboxes and the inclusion of dates other than the state's founding dates.
With consensus being clearly in favor of the date's removal, the article should be updated accordingly. @ Robert McClenon:, shall we have to wait 30 days before any update is made to the article in accordance with it, or does the solid consensus that has already been formed thus far, suffice already? -- 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ( talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 08:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Also note that per WP:CCC
proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive, even if you propose to change said consensus by changing the guidelines of the infobox. -- Michail ( blah) 10:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
During the Paleologi dynasty (1261–1453) a new era of Greek patriotism emerged accompanied by a turning back to ancient Greeceare directly linked to this debate. This needs additional citations, as an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. -- Michail ( blah) 23:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Does this need to be formally closed? The debate has died down and there is a clear 2:1 consensus for removal. -- Michail ( blah) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This reversal is quite frankly ridiculous. What is there to talk about? We have talked about it before, and all that's happened is more images were added - there were 77 and now there are 80 (not including galleries). As of its restored version, it has pictures left and right, disrupting the text, including numerous instances of sandwiching, as well as 3 overhanging images past the last section which push the references down and leave a white gap almost the entire length of my computer screen - and I have a big computer screen. I await to hear exactly how it is proposed this article is fixed, apart from removing images. In the meantime it should be downgraded to 'C' class. -- Michail ( blah) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't know the policies in as much detail about everyone else, is there a policy about images from other websites with website names and URLS still visible in the image? I think it is a bit like using the article to promote the website so maybe this type of image could be removed if everyone agrees that is not what is encyclopedic purpose?
SemperDissolubilis (
talk) 00:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy that it is easy to add but difficult to remove. Maybe best next step will be if objecting to Michail's choices then to implement suggestions about dual images and make adjustments based on input so far received. Then it may be easier to get a consensus maybe or everyone continues trying to guess how to fix objections? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SemperDissolubilis (
talk •
contribs) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I wanted to say is that the number of photos by 26 February 2019 seems to be a little bit large. At least to me. In my opinion all these photos is something too much for an article concerning a country. Fewer images would do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It is good to put in the infobox that, before the independence from ottoman empire, Greece was united for first time under Alexander the Great and his hegemony. Vasiagrgr ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Twice now [4] [5], User:Thenabster126 has inserted claims about Greece sharing "maritime borders" with countries such as Italy, Libya or Cyprus. It doesn't. The only meaningful concept of "maritime boundaries" is boundaries of territorial waters, and Greece doesn't share such boundaries with any other country except Albania and Turkey. The only boundaries it has with other countries further afield are those of Exclusive economic zones or Continental shelf zones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This article ( List of countries and territories by land and maritime borders) states that it shares maritime borders with other countries. You would have to do the same with other pages for countries where it mentions maritime borders. What do you mean by boundaries? It shares borders with more than just those 2. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I hope that definition is cleared up for Maritime borders. Thenabster126 ( talk) 04:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
According to recent official data of the European Commission (2015), the area of Greece is 132,049 sq kms
Sources of information: - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/factsheets/pdf/el_en.pdf - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-indicators/context/2017/full-text_en.pdf - https://kundoc.com/pdf-geographies-of-crisis-in-greece-a-social-well-being-approach-.html - https://docplayer.net/102295236-Production-guide-greece.html (Hellenic Film Production)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.232.12.151 (
talk) 07:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The term "illegal immigrants" is used to describe refugees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.0.15 ( talk) 05:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It states in the article that Greece is a part of the Balkans, although this is disputed be Geographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinan Blueje ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is this page a separate page from Third Hellenic Republic? Idiacanthus 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no logical reason why there is no mention of the work of Yorgos Lanthimos in the brief summary of Greek Cinema. AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 01:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Η Ελλάδα (στην καθαρεύουσα Ελλάς), με επίσημη συνταγματική ονομασία Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, είναι χώρα της νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης στο νοτιότερο άκρο της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου. Συνορεύει στα βορειοδυτικά με την Αλβανία, στα βόρεια με τη Βόρεια Μακεδονία και τη Βουλγαρία και στα βορειοανατολικά με την Τουρκία. Έχει ακτές στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και βρέχεται ανατολικά από το Αιγαίο, δυτικά από το Ιόνιο και νότια από το Λιβυκό. Η Ελλάδα κατέχει την 11η θέση στις χώρες με τη μεγαλύτερη ακτογραμμή στα 13.676 χιλιόμετρα, καθώς έχει πλήθος νησιών που υπολογίζεται, αναλόγως τα κριτήρια, στα 2.500 με τα 165 έως 227 να είναι κατοικήσιμα. Βρίσκεται στην 97η θέση στην κατάταξη των χωρών του κόσμου σύμφωνα με την έκτασή τους. Ο πληθυσμός της χώρας την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2017 εκτιμήθηκε ότι ήταν 10.757.300, σύμφωνα με τις επίσημες εκτιμήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Στατιστικής Υπηρεσίας.[6] Η πρωτεύουσα της, και συγχρόνως η μεγαλύτερη πόλη της, είναι η Αθήνα. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uavmete ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I find the selection of some of the images representing some section at least unthoughtful. For example how could Greek cuisine be represented by am exterior view of a a taverna building and not a dish. Also Mikis Theodorakis picture should represent him at the height of his music career not at his later age. Finally a better opinion of the Byzantine Era and its art could be made with the picture of the mosaics at the dome of Hagia Sophia church rather than again an exterior view of the building with its surrounding modern area. – AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 00:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings everybody, so I am just restating my previous proposal for an update of some dated and repetitve pictures (some are low quality others are simply not the best way to represent the text that accompanies them). I believe that the images of Angelokastro and Agia Sofia in Thessaloniki are the most striking examples. Because Angelokastro's role in Greek history although important it is basically regional and does not correspond to what was happenng in the Greek peninsula as a whole during that area and as far as Agia Sofia is concerned I beleieve taht the main reason that this picture was chosen was a cheap substitute to Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, however, the main problem is the alterations that it received during the Ottoman era so it is not the best example of Byzantine architecture in Greece in comparison to Hosios Loukas who remains largely intact since the age of its construction. I understand that I might come out as irritating to some and for that I am sorry but I believe that this issue deserves at least a discussion and not a snub without a second thought. Finally I am also sorry to those that I somehow might offend with this (I seriously do not understand the reasons). And lastly I suggest a section that references the Biodiversity of Greece like other similar articles in the site.
AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 18:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that the image depicting 'the territorial evolution of the Kingdom of Greece from 1832 to 1947' is full of inaccuracies.
It'd be better if all the unnecessary Greek-to-English transliterations were removed. The infobox should deliver clear, useful and comprehensive information. -- 91.140.88.224 ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
صةيأإوضاتعغثلنرزةسووىيصظعئؤصيشررذخجحئ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.131.176.5 ( talk) 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Griekenland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of North Greece. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand that we don't want lead sentence bloat, but readers expect to see the common native name, plus a transliteration and pronunciation directly after the English name of a country. Obviously Greece has several names which should be discussed, but I think at least Ελλάδα needs to be in the lead sentence. If not visible outright, then using footnote templates. C.f. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.@ Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Julia ☺ 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
demonym =
AzaanDeen ( talk) 07:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"due the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" → "due to the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" 80.3.103.8 ( talk) 13:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
With respect to wikipedia article convention, I think it is clear that images must be located within the boundaries of the country that the article is about. Clearly the image of the Alexander the Great mosaic in the 'Archaic and Classical' period subsection is outside of Greece (located in Pompeii, Italy). I recommend dropping it for consistency sake and to avoid confusion. Kromid ( talk) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Greece has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ancient greece used cars to make egyptain pryamids Waffle1212 ( talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed the GDP figures are outdated based on the latest IMF data released on the same source cited within the article (namely https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=174,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.142.30 ( talk) 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)