Talk:2008 Greek riots/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Renaming

Should the title of the article be renamed to include the new year? If the riots are still continuing. OOODDD (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The riots are still continuing. I agree that the article has to be renamed. Sources:

• [1] - (as provided by another user above)
• [2] - "The police talked about a blow-blind murderous attack directly related to the events that followed the murder of the 15 y.o. Alexis Grigoropoulos on 6 December." ("Η αστυνομία μιλούσε για τυφλό χτύπημα-δολοφονική επίθεση που συνδέεται άμεσα με τα γεγονότα που ακολούθησαν τη δολοφονία του 15χρονου Αλέξη Γρηγορόπουλου στις 6 Δεκεμβρίου.")
• [3] - PASOK announcement for the shooting of a policeman (5-1-2009):

  "The responsibilities of the current government for the scrapping phenomena prevailing in the Greek Police, and the general situation that has developed on the streets of Greek cities and continued even during the holidays, are obvious." ("Οι ευθύνες της σημερινής κυβέρνησης για τα φαινόμενα διάλυσης που επικρατούν και στην Ελληνική Αστυνομία, καθώς και για την γενικότερη κατάσταση που έχει διαμορφωθεί στους δρόμους των ελληνικών πόλεων και συνεχίστηκε ακόμη και την περίοδο των εορτών, είναι προφανείς.")

• [4] - KKE announcement after the shooting against a police vehicle 3 days before and a policeman (5-1-2009):

  "It was expressed by the attack with Kalashnikovs against the riot-policemen (MAT) vehicles. The event today is a link in the same chain." ("Εκφράστηκε και με την επίθεση με καλάσνικοφ κατά της κλούβας των ΜΑΤ. Το σημερινό γεγονός αποτελεί κρίκο της ίδιας αλυσίδας.")

I propose the title to be moved to "2008-2009 civil unrest in Greece".--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lady6thofAu. Today a policeman was shot in the same neighborhood as Alexis Grigoropoulos (some blocks away). Pel thal (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. These are terrorist acts somehow "inspired" by the events of December, not their continuation.

I propose December 24, till when NTUA's occupation lasted, as the ending date for the template. [5] Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't consider a blog with 10 posts total a reliable source.
2. The riots were inspired by the death of Grigoropoulos anyway, in the above sources Herald Tribune reports a continuation. Major greek newspapers report the police, PASOK and KKE claiming that there is a continuation. I think that the 1st week of 2009 is full of events that should be mentioned in the article as reported in the sources.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if the submachine gun attacks on the police are separate, but (minor) demonstrations did continue into the New Year. However, I propose delaying any decision on renaming the year until we are a little more into 2009. Xenos2008 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think we should mention the events in the article though.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are in the article. The only issue is the renaming of the year: let's wait to see if there are any other events more obviously connected with the events of December.Xenos2008 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need a rename though i disagree with Asmedai 119 the terrorist (and savage if i may add) attack is in my opinion and the view of international media, of greek media, of the greek politicians a continuation of the events started in 2008 i don't see the need however to change the tittle to include 2009 since as it seems right now the only event we'll have to add in the article we'll be the large demonstration organised (since before the holiday by POSDEP, ADEDY and GSEE if i'm not mistaken) for 9 Jan. 2009.

P.S. i also want to urge people to actually read the article (or at least pay attention to the history tab) before they post on the talk page since the terrorist attack part was added since 13:20 GMT, 5 January 2009 by OOODDD--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, since events update really fast I should have better said all events. I think it is important to include the reaction of the prime minister, political parties etc (e.g. Prime Minister's announcement, KKE claiming the policeman's shooting was part of a plan etc. - source above) for the policeman's shooting.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please note that there is systematic vandalism, citing the Greek WP, and removing all events after the first week. I have reverted the edits made by 85.72.132.194 Xenos2008 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the article's renaming, the protests have continued to the present day, if the consensus says otherwise however, please remove the current events tab and change the infobox to the agreed end date.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

could you please provide some sources about the protests continuing for example today or yesterday cause then i could add it to the article (by the way i still oppose the renaming of the article to contain the new year i don't see the reason for the title to contain all the details)--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. On the article, we already have incidents, including riots, that are from 2009. The fact is that, even though the international media is not giving so much attention, the country is still in a state of "civil unrest". Maziotis (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Third week" section

I was reading through the riots section and the third week section seems to be garbled chronologically. At first I thought it was just the days and dates not matching up (for example Friday was not the 25th, it was the 26th) but when checking the sources the dates given within them don't match either. Specifically the line about the Wednesday march seems to be repeating the previous paragraph and the final paragraph has two days mixed together. I'd edit it but I can't make sense of the order, can anyone else make sense of it? Nmcc89 (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

fixed--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We are in 2009

Since the unrest has continued into 2009, should the article be renamed 2008–2009 civil unrest in Greece?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the discussion above, concerning this same topic. Continue discussion above.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Shooting of the police officer

Isn't the police officer shooting [6] a direct consequence of the anti-police climate that prevailed during the last month and shouldn't it be covered in this article? Every media has made this connection, Wikipedia hasn't yet.--Avg (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let the useless media speculate: serious people establish facts first, and then try to interpret. My own opinion is that the attempted murder of the Special Guard has a historical connection with previous violence against the police, and is a form of organised terrorism as opposed to civil unrest. One of the remarkable (and positive) things about the unrest was exactly the lack of personal violence, despite extensive fighting with the police and burning of state and private property: this marks out modern Greek civil disorder as being distinctly non-violent, in contrast to the attempted murder of the MAT officer. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we are an encyclopedia, and our goal is not to find the truth. If the connection is found across mainstream media references, it might be notable to hold a reference in the article, by itself. Maziotis (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias (other than very low quality ones) do not reproduce the foolish ideas of the mainstream media, although they do sometimes reproduce foolish ideas found in published academic work. If the goal of WP is merely to assemble disconnected opinionated ideas, then feel free to insert whatever idiocies you can find out there. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008 I'm afraid you're introducing your own POV in a big way. It is completely WP:OR to claim that this was a non-violent movement (if it is a movement at all). On the contrary, there are many many instances of violence. In fact my own POV is that the riots reflect the level of violence that pre-existed in the Greek society for some time now, especially within the youngsters. Teenage mobs exist in all neighborhoods, hooliganism is on the rise, attacks on specific youth groups (e.g. emos) is the norm, so it's only normal for youngsters to consider violence as a logical choice. --Avg (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Avg: of course, it is my POV and I merely express it here on the Talk page, and put nothing in the article. The fact is that, compared with the UK, Italy, Spain, etc (other EU countries) Greece is very low on violence of all sorts. There is a popular Greek consensus that violence is out of control since 1990, but this is not supported by any hard facts (small increases excepted). Anyway, for the purpose of this article, I think we should show conservatism about the meaning of things, although not as much as the few who deny that there is any social unrest! The long-term distrust of the police and the Greek state are factual, so there is no problem in including these. The role of violence is highly POV: let's avoid speculation on it. Xenos2008 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference (Kathimerini) claiming that there is no linkage between the riots and the attempted murder of the MAT officer on Monday: [7] Xenos2008 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added sources above in the renaming section, claiming a linkage between the riots and the shooting.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

the fact in my opinion is that the shooting of the police man just like the shooting of the seccond teen in december are part of the general climate that took shape over the past few weeks in greece however i'm not sure if we can attribute the shooting to the negative climate created by the media against policemen like the police labour unionists say because in my opinion it is the police's responsibility to create a positive image of themselves just like in the other European countries e.g. England, Germany, Italy etc. it is difficult for us to judge wheather the greek media worked for or against the police (IMO they should have stayed Neutral) but we cannot use wikipedia to write stuff like this down. Perhaps if there is a formal announcement against the greek media we can add it to the Criticism of the media section of the article--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"i'm not sure if we can attribute the shooting to the negative climate created by the media". I agree with you, in fact there are sources claiming that the shootings to the second teenager and the policeman were organized by provocateurs. The question is certainly not about attributing the shootings to the climate, but about the existence of a relation between them.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

there was a anonymous user who deleted a large part of this article cause "the article does not correspond with el.wikipedia.org and 1 section is WP:undue" ahould the article be shaped to correspond with the article of the greek wikipedia?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The greek wikipedia article is very very very conservative.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no rule, in any wikipedia, that suggests that one should comply with another. We need a good reason to cut a huge section of an article. It's possible that, if this event goes on, at some point in the future we will have to compress the text. This, of course, doesn't mean to cut the last 5 weeks, at any point, as if they never happened. If there is a problem with any source, it should be addressed here. Maziotis (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes ok i'd like the opinion of other editors as well this interests me particularly cause i have added almost 1/3 of the section "riots and political crisis" and i don't want to see it go down the drain.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The different language versions of WP are independent and it is not a valid argument to delete things from one because they are not in another. A more valid argument would be that the one with a deficiency of material should consider importing some from the more developed article ;; Ha! As if that could happen! Xenos2008 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so basing the contents of one on another is a bad idea. Murderbike (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Response

I think that this should be mentioned, Rizospastis is the official newspaper of KKE. Secondary source about it here criticized the response as "black spot".--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the article: "The KKE has stated that the riots and the destruction is the work of foreign agents acting as provocateurs. The leader of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, called for organized struggle against the main politics that it will be well guarded against suspicious command centers."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion expressed in the source I provided above is different.

Quote from the secondary source:

"In this political text, shown as a short story which will also be a black spot on KKE, with a much more coherent structure than that of Kougia's provocative statements, acquitted, yes you've read accurately, acquitted the policeman - «child of the worker from the village», which shot «the bad-ass boys» «that have a private home with three cars, nannies and teachers at home», which «called names on his mother» and «went to burn him like a candle» !!!" ("Σε αυτό το πολιτικό κείμενο, που εμφανίζεται σαν διήγημα και που θα αποτελέσει μελανή κηλίδα για το ΚΚΕ, με μια πολύ πιο συγκροτημένη δομή απ' ό,τι εκείνη των προκλητικών δηλώσεων Κούγια, αθωώνεται, ναι καλά διαβάσατε, αθωώνεται ο αστυφύλακας - «παιδί της παραδουλεύτρας από το χωριό», που πυροβόλησε «τα κωλόπαιδα» «με σπίτι ιδιόκτητο, τρία αυτοκίνητα, νταντάδες και καθηγητές στο σπίτι», τα οποία του «βρίζανε τη μάνα» και «πήγαν να τον κάψουν σαν λαμπάδα»!!!")--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the first source:

In the short story published by KKE newspaper, the special guard is portrayed as a poor guy of the people, that was forced by the police to become a special guard. He had numerous problems in his childhood, his father was drunk and his mother was struggling to make ends meet. Finally, while he was on duty rich kids called names on his mother and tried to burn him, as a response he shot them. He doesn't regret it and has called Rizospastis that will let his opinion be expressed. He says that the only honest man he ever met was a supporter of KKE and Liana Kanelli was the only one that understood what made him shoot the kid.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ok we could add this to the article if it represented the formal position of the KKE but it doesn't in fact at the begining of the link you gave to the rizospastis newspaper it says "ΔΙΗΓΗΜΑ" which means "fictional story". Also the section of the domestic response is about the POVs of political parties over the riots not the POVs of political parties over the shooting incident. Finally the criticism section contains criticism towards other parties the government etc. as they are represented by officials and authorities not political views or other criticism coming from the papers or unofficial supporters of one or the other party. It seems to me that we cannot add it to any section as long as it doesn't come from officials of the aforementioned party--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the short story itself is quite notable and should be mentioned, since it was written by a political party about the event.

It is indeed a fictional story, alas! I would never claim it is real!, but it is undeniable that it was created by KKE and it was published in its official newspaper as a formal expression. Although not entirely fictional as any short story (i.e. it takes an actual event - the shooting - and develops a story), it represents a formal position of KKE about the reasons behind the shooting, about the hoodied guys etc. As the Eleutherotypia claims and as Coalition of the Radical Left in official blogs says they both criticized the story because the special guard's fictional "revelation" is the formal POV of KKE about the event.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

so you're basically saying that we should include a mention of a fictional story about how the shooting happened that was written by some member of the kke (i presume) and published in a newspaper that was claimed by a journalist in another newspaper (we don't even know if the journalist expresses the opinion of his newpaper) to be expressing the formal position of the party that is interconnected with the first newspaper. And all this should be added in an article that talks mainly about the riots and not the shooting ... ok that is the definition of farfetched....--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't say that, I think you misunderstood what I've said. To make things clear, initially I have to inform you that:

1. Rizospastis is "an organ of the Central Committee of KKE" (sic), whatever is written there is not just POV of an individual member/author but POV of KKE (as per newspaper's claim).
2. There is no signature under the short story, apart from the letters A.S.A. and no individual author of Rizospastis claimed openly the text as his own.

All the sources claimed/reported the short story as a political text, not as a plain short story/literature. In any case (either it is a political text or a short story), it is undeniable that it is a formal text by KKE since it has appeared in Rizospastis.

The short story was broadly criticized by secondary sources (not only by one journalist), I mentioned Eleutherotypia since it is a major newspaper and therefore can be considered as a reliable one. Gathering altogether the sources I have found about the text:

• Eleutherotypia newspaper, criticism about the text in "Ios" included paper (we can be sure it expresses the opinion of Eleutherotypia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady 6thofAu (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Eleutherotypia newspaper, criticism about the text (signed by George Roussis)
• Criticism at the official blog of the Coalition of the Radical Left
• Eleutherotypia newspaper, report about the criticism by editor that "supports Coalition of the Radical Left" (sic)
• Ethnos newspaper, report about the criticism against the text
• To Vima newspaper, report about the criticism against the text

Therefore, my point is that:

1. A short story about the shooting created by a political party and published in its newspaper is notable per se,
2. especially since it generated so much criticism by another party, as well as in major newspapers, and
3. since there are reports about criticism against the text, also in major newspapers.

Therefore, I think it should be mentioned in an article where the shooting is mentioned. AFAIK, this article is about the shooting (as well as the riots) and the domestic response section contains opinions about it (e.g. "The Panhellenic Socialist Movement issued an announcement holding the police responsible for the incident", ""Meanwhile, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) spoke of a cruel murder.", "The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) attributed the killing [...] to the result of escalating authoritarianism, reinforcement of the suppression mechanisms and their action, the network of reactionary laws and the "Euro-terror laws" created by the governments of ND and PASOK.", etc.").--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

and my point is this: this is a feud between two left parties, it is part of their feud and connected with the "ear foddling" stuff, it is not notable enough to be added to the article, it did not receive so much coverage as you present (since most of the articles you show above are part of the columns where journalists express their opinions) and i personally am tired of this argument. if you wish to add this, try to form a concensus with other editors of the article. i oppose. "I'm anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your counter-argument, you make a point that a text published in the official newspaper of KKE is a feud, anyone criticizing it has just an opinion and nothing is a secondary source. Well... that is a point, which doesn't make sense. It's a way to oppose when you're tired.

I would like to hear more opinions by other editors.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

nice going in paraphrasing what i said "feud between two left parties" to "text published ... is a feud" let me try to explain this to you i don't dispute that what you're saying is not the truth i state the fact that it's not noteworthy and that it's not directly related to this article. "I'm anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be polite, I didn't paraphrase anything. I requested the text to be mentioned and your response was that "this is a feud" and "it is not notable enough". You stated your opinion, so instead of making statements again and again let arguments be heard.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i was as polite as it get's could you tell where i was rude to you?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"nice going in paraphrasing" <-- This is called irony:

• The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
• An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

and such behaviour is considered impolite.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok just 1 question even if we accept as a fact that that was irony(good job assuming good faith btw). By whom is irony considered to be rude?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean to be blind on facts, e.g. you can't be ironic or call someone names etc. and then request good faith assumption. Irony is considered an insult by most ppl, if you want some source though you may read this. Anyway, this talk page is for a different purpose so I stop from writing here.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

yes whatever. i believe though you confuse irony with sarcasm.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 civil unrest in Greece

People, we need to change the name of the article. There is no doubt now. January 1:[8] January 5:[9] January 9:[10][11][12] Maziotis (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as explained above and according to the links --Lady 6thofAu (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as my street was set on fire again yesterday:-Pp Xenos2008 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose , we don't need to change the title to include 2009 just because the events continue i don't see the reason for the tittle to include both years. The riots started on 2008 and therefore they are called the 2008 riots. Now if they continue to the middle of 2009(which i don't think so) i.e. 06/2009 we would have to change it.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinion... That is not the criterion usually used here, though. I believe the date part of the title should indicate what is the period... this is not a catchy journal title, with a reference about its start. It is very common to find encylopedic articles with the date in this format - 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The date prevents us from confusing two events with similar realities, but that happened in different periods of time. Otherwise, the article can have no mention of date whatsoever. To me, I believe this is a question of organization, using an established criterion that applies to all. Maziotis (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This should be renamed to 2008 Greek riots --Michael X the White (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "2005 support for the ND government"? Xenos2008 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On a serious note, why not call it "2008-2009 Greek riots"? I think it would be easier to seperate the issues. This topic is for renaming the article in terms of date. We already have a discussion above concerning the terms "riot" and "civil unrest": Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#Rename_request_discussion:_Riots_vs._Civil_Unrest.3F Maziotis (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the original name of riots were to be brought back, then all the non-riot events would have to be deleted from the article and another article made to include them. I do not know what the other article would be about, nor I am convinced that it is easy to separate the issues. Xenos2008 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should refer to the event as "civil unrest" (for the reasons given in the said section), but for the arguments I have seen in here, I was hoping we could separate the issues, and change the date to comprehend to encompass the full period of time. It seems to be the rule on thumb here. Maziotis (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree on something like 2008 riots & protests in Greece per Los Angeles riots of 1992 and 2006 youth protests in France. Also to Xenos2008 i don't think that your recent comment: Why not "2005 support for the ND government" was a good example of assuming good faith (basically the complete opposite).--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this event is closer to 2005 civil unrest in France. Notice that this event started and ended in 2005. For all events that have a period of time that encompasses different years, the stretch is reflected in the article's name. Maziotis (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that it continues into 2009 does not mean that it is no longer the "2008 riots". Unless they begin to have a profound affect in 2009, they were only notable in 2008. They have stopped covering it here in the USA. It seems that the riots are over, yet there is still some continuing demonstrations. I don't think that this makes it the 2009 riots also. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Should be renamed to 2008 Greek Riots for reasons listed above. Riots and unrest are 2 different things. Greekboy (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Greek riots is what it really was. Civil unrest is misleading, there is no kind of unrest or revolt. Only if we count terrorism and limited extremists group's actions as a social unrest the title would be right, but thats far from reality.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Headlines seem to disagree, look at the section below. What do you have to say about these sources? Did they report something that didn't exist?--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This should be renamed to 2008 Greek riots. They were riots and they were over by the end of 2008. This is reflected in the article as it is now.Sardath (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC) That is your POV and not a fact. Xenos2008 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

End date

According to what I heard and found out by the Greek media only 80 schools remain under occupation and in protest and just 6 faculties of the NTUA. Plus i even checked in the Athens indymedia and all the demonstrations and protests planned for the next week are connected with the recent conflict in Gaza. I think it’s safe to put the 9 of January as an end date for the events. However if something connected with this events happens in the near future I assure you I’ll add it and change the date.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 80 is not a small number.
• Indymedia's calendar may not be updated yet and certainly is not the only source we should consider. Even there though I can see events scheduled related to the article:
  • protest for those arrested - 17 Jan
  • [13] ceremony to remember Alexis Grigoropoulos - 18 Jan

I think that we should wait for at least a week after the last event to change the end date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady 6thofAu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be hard to find where is the burden of proof, but there is simply no sources whatsoever that could sustain the claim that this event ended precisely on 9 January. I believe that if we can't find consensus on this, we will have to leave only the starting date, for now. Maziotis (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

firstly 80 schools under occupation is a very small number compared to the 800+ schools that were occupied at the high point of these events. Secondly can any of you find a source that claims these events will continue (riots, demonstrations, protests) and a connection between them and the death of Alexis ? No you won't find anything because there is absolutely no protest planned in the near future by any organisation in Greece that is connected with the killing of Alexis. In fact any protest after 9 january are either about the Gaza conflict or about the attack at a bulgarian labour unionist. So yes it will be difficult to find sources to confirm the end date but the absence of protests connected with the death of Grigoropoulos should be proof enough. Now as i said before if something happens that is indeed connected with the basis of this article i'll be the first one who'll change the date and add info about that event and please don't forget that i'm the person who contributed almost 1/2 of the riots and political crisis section (where all these events are included). --Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. 80 schools should be considered as an absolute number when talking about an event which had such gross participation and so many effects. Everything now compared to its peak is relatively small, yet this doesn't mean that small reactions are not part of the event.
2. The article is not only about the death of Alexis, as it is not only about events connected with his death - since it not only about riots. Therefore, the protest about people arrested in the events described is related to the article (protest for those arrested)
3. I appreciate that you've contributed so much to the article, but the only way to say that the unrest ended is to reach a consensus based on certain sources. The ceremony to remember Alexandros is scheduled for the 18th, I think we should wait until then to say that events have ended (I don't believe we'll be able then to do so).--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you put 9 January there, it will stand as the event beginning on the December 6 and ending on January 9. That is misleading. You simply have no sources for that being the case. You can't say that the event, "so far", ended on January 9. That doesn't make any sense. Maziotis (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I did have doubts that is why i put the (?) symbol but you changed that too saying : "is this a joke?"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece&diff=263247534&oldid=263237209 so no it is not a joke. do you want to change 9 January to (?) 9 January or sth like that now?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you sound like you are making a threat or blackmailing me. What is your position? What do you think we should do? What I am trying to say is that by putting the "9 January" there, you are basically saying that you have sources for this event starting at December 6 and ending at 9 January, which is nothing short of a lie. You can't say that this ended on January 9. The fact is that you don't know. Till now, we have been using "present", since we consider that events are still unfolding and there are no secure signs that this ended. If we feel this has changed, and that there might be a possibility that this ended, than at least we shouldn't put a date. We would consider that the burden changed sides, and that now we should be cautious to say that it is still going on. But to say that the end date is "January 9" is a lie. If things happen later, visitors will think we made a mistake, when in fact we had one guy with a policy of constant updating the "end". Maybe this won't end, ever think of that? Maybe this is the start of something else, and we will have to rename the article again. If we don’t know the “duration” of this event, because it is still going on, we don’t try to guess it by putting the date of the “last big thing”. That is just plain wrong. Maziotis (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Maziotis, Der Blaue Reiter please try not to cause discomfort.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to black mail anyone. The fact that i have written a big part of the article remains a fact. So is the fact that you 2 have so far greatly contributed to the discussion by saying that we should ellevate this to a civil war status and other stuff like that... the (?) 9 January is a pretty good proposal IMO. Finding sources claiming 9 January is the end is not my responsibility i'm just making the simple deduction that since there are no plans for protests to continue and since the 9 of Jan. was the last day of the events we can put that as an end date.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you think that it is a good proposal, but obviously others disagree. Trying to enforce it with reverts, especially while there is an ongoing discussion is definately not a good attitude and definately it doesn't help anyone.

I've shown you plans for a protest, what do you say about this?

I didn't say anything about civil war, please consider what you say before you write it.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i consider what i write before i write unlike other people .... the plans of protest that you've shown me are 7 days from now if these events escallate into rioting or draw a large crowd as i allready said before i'll be the first one who'll add it to the article and change the end date.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about unrest, not only about riots. A protest shows unrest of the people and as Maziotis said you have no source that it has ended and saying "it has ended so far" doesn't make sense. Please consider others opinion, yours is not the only opinion here. Please don't try to enforce it, because that is what the reverts you do show.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

whereas your reverts are more soft and gentle right? i do consider others opinions but the opinion of you 2 is not the only one here so give it sometime so that others can contribute to our discussion.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The only opinions in this section are yours, mine and Maziotis. Mine happens to be the same with Maziotis, therefore there are 2 opinions against yours, against the change you want to make. It appears that you consider your opinion above the other 2 and while there was a discussion about making the change, you've done it and also you have violated the 3 revert rule by constantly reverting the article. Try to be polite, calm yourself and please discuss the issues in the talk page.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

that is exactly what i'm doing if you look at the begging of this section you'll see that i started this section however... since this discussion has not concluded you yourself needs to stop reverting my edits and wait until we have more oppinions so that we can reach a concensus for or against my proposal. So please stop Pov pushing.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromising to update doesn't change that we are lying every time. We simply have no sources to indicate that the social conditions have changed in a way that the last events of social disturbance will take place on January 9, or other. If you want to be cautious on the side of considering that it may have ended, then don't put an end date at all. As it is, I think it is completely misleading. Maziotis (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I can see now that others have change the article and came forward in the talk page. The reference to being completly misleading "as it is" refers to the previous edit. Maziotis (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I know all this ended 2 weeks after the boy's demise. You can't compare what happened those 2 weeks (especially the first week) to the few, limited events that took place the last week, that are not something special compared to the "normal" situation in Greece, especially after a "pan-educational rally". While one could connect the few things that happened last week to the events that took place a month ago, none could say that these are part of one unbreakable period of "trouble". The events of last week are in no way of the volume of those of a month ago and thiey did not trouble the entire country. If this article is to present the very violent events and situation of those 2 weeks, it would be enormously misleading to say that the situation is "ongoing". The reader would understand that there is still enormous breaking and looting every night in Athens, while that is not the case. (Do not forget the ~20-day break). So, I propose searching the end date around December 23.

Furthermore, the idea of "civil unrest" that is being promoted implies a more continous situation which obviously cannot have such a large break.

By the way, in WP "2 vs 1" has totally no sense. WP consensus is not about democracy. It is about arguments. For a good example, check Talk: Greece.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are touching a lot of topics at once. I stand by the position that you can't keep picking the last big date, ensuring that at least a part of the period is cover. Maybe instead of picking a number (such as 23) we should consider the event confined to the month of December, of last year. I think it would be a matter of opening a section to discuss this.

As I stated in the proper section, I believe the term "civil unrest" fits perfectly. Have you read the article on that on wikipedia? I understand it's not a source, but it could help demystify some points. I think some people are reading societal collapse or civil war (as I heard here) in place of civil unrest. Again, we should discuss this in the proper section. Maziotis (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil unrest is perfect for me, it includes riots, breakings, shootings, protests, demonstrations, ceremonies, critisicm etc. that are related altogether and presented to the article. The event presented is certainly a complex one and we don't have a source that it has ended. We have sources that the 23rd was not the end of the unrest. We have sources that the events continued on 2009. All the rest are WP:OR, as said below.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstood, I pointed that "civil unrest" is incompatible with "ongoing". You do not need a source to support that the riots are over. Interpretation of several factors may lead to this conclusion that may be made here. And if it does (consensus) it will be included in the main article.

May we please have the "sources" here, anyway??--Michael X the White (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When we started to discuss that topic, some sources were presented: Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#2008-2009_civil_unrest_in_Greece

I don't understand how it is not possible to say that Greece is in a state of civil unrest, in the present tense. I think it is right, and it fits the definition. There is social distrubance in the Greek society, even tough all major institutions are functioning properly. Maziotis (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources are in sections:

• Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#2008-2009_civil_unrest_in_Greece and
• Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#Renaming

You need a source for everything, otherwise the WP:OR won't be covered and thus there can be no consensus (consensus means that editors reach an agreement that the material is according to all policies).--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We still need strong, reliable sources with clear statements.

1. Anarchist blogs and political parties' announcements are not sources
2. Limited new events that took place once after alomst 20 days certainly are only an echo. There is no continuity between last month riots and what happened a few days ago.
3. Tribune talks about "renewed" and mentions "last month riots" supporting my argument of lack of continuity.
4. "TA NEA" refers to the police stating things but officially, the police did not.[14]. There are sources about the few things that happened, but in fact they only show that these events were a very limited echo of the riots of the last month. Consensus is an agreement of all sides based on talk here in the talk page. Check the policy ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity, and therefore does not mean agreement of all sides. Check your Latin and English dictionaries. Xenos2008 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be limited to the events of December 2008. The events so far this year, with the exception of the armed attack on the young policeman, are well within the range of what constitutes "business as usual" in Greece (the odd rowdy demonstration with a bit of tear gas and a few broken shop windows thrown in for good measure), whereas those of last month were clearly in a different league altogether. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. I have lived in Athens for 10 years, and never has my street been set on fire until last month and now again, on Friday. It is clear that the civil unrest is continuing, and you have no evidence to suggest that it has stopped. It is much more than the odd demonstration. Xenos2008 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So your street being burned twice makes it civil unrest??--Michael X the White (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep things in context. He said everything was back to normal. Maziotis (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people are determined to distort the facts and also others' comments. Athens and Thessaloniki are not back to normal, and the evidence of just one central street is offered to show it. I do not know how many others streets were set on fire on Friday, but I suspect you do not either. It is so commonplace now that newspaper hardly report the fires, but confine themselves to more violent incidents. This is not normal Greece. Xenos2008 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. To call everything that happened in 2009 "an exception" in "business as usual" (?!) doesn't mean erase the facts that have happened. A man has been hospitalized on 9-1-2009 and then policemen beat him again so he was re-hospitalized, lawyers were arrested and people were hiding in civilians homes. According to sources this is clearly not an aftermath.
2. Tribune reports: Arsonists attacked 10 banks and two car dealerships around Athens early Thursday amid New Year celebrations in the Greek capital, police said. and At least five arson attacks were also reported by police in Greece's second largest city, Thessaloniki. Police also briefly clashed with protesters in the city, and fired tear gas at rock throwing demonstrators. it is obvious that since it reports a continuation it gives a chronological order mentioning the previous events ("last month's riots")
3. Official police announcements are considered official because they are made by police officials, such as generals, ministers, etc. This means that if such a person goes to "TA NEA" newspaper and makes a statement then the newspaper reports it as official. www.ekato.gr is not a database of official statements, it helps police make direct official statements without going to the press. "TA NEA" is a major, reliable newspaper and suggesting that it shouldn't be a source doesn't make sense.
4. Official political parties announcements in official blogs of the parties are sources for the party's statements and a source for the POV of the party. Therefore they can be used to write that: "3 political parties claim that the events are a continuation".
5. As a final remark... if you are about to exclude newspapers, exclude parties' announcements, exclude every source... well only then you can claim that there is no continuation source.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Official police announcements are not statements of police officials. Those two are two very different things. TA NEA may be a major newspaper but know what is challenged is what is quoted by them. (By the way, it is known in Greece that TA NEA is pro-PASOK, so there's a little POV in there.) Political parties obviously have POV!! Opposition wants to make things more dramatic in an anti-governmental way when the government wants to make things look better. Everyone in politics obviously has a POV and quite a strong one actually. And I still think the same sources actually support that it is all an echo only.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "(By the way, it is known in Greece that TA NEA is pro-PASOK, so there's a little POV in there.)"?! That's your opinion, but the newspaper has never declared that it is pro-PASOK and has no connection with PASOK. If you want to question the reliability of the newspaper then please give some sources that show it has some dependant connection to PASOK, "everybody" is not such source.
2. Do you know any official statement that is not made by an official of the police? If you want to convince people in this conversation, I would like some source, since I don't know any official police statement that was not made by police officials.
3. Political parties obviously have POV, none is going to say they don't. Though when we write about their POV (and there are situations to write about a political parties' opinion - e.g. obviously the criticism section), then their official statements are reliable to source their opinion as being their opinion. I can smell some confusion on the matter... but think of it as follows:

   we are not going to write that "the events continue [<ref> X party says so</ref>]", but it is quite safe to say that "X party claimed they continue", since X is some 3 parties. The source that the events continue are the newspapers presented, not the parties POV.

4. The sources don't say neither that it's an after-echo nor that it stopped, if you think otherwise please point to such phrase.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that things are still happening - http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/ http://katalipsiesiea.blogspot.com/ - even if there is no rioting every day. If things are not back to "normal", wheather you call it echo or not, the fact ist that the event is still going on. It seems we still have a case of civil unrest in Greece; not civil war, not societal collapse, but civil disturbance - considered more than usual, and connected to the events beginning last month. Maziotis (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not sources especially anarchist blogs, especially about this here! And there's still an issue about those with an admin (Future Perfect A.S.)

What I'm saying is that this is an echo of the events of last month and not an inseperable part of them with continuity with them.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't provide any sources. Maziotis (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

same--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You could use that in "Criticism of the Media". There is no other possible use that comes out of that.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you redefine the occupation of a building as something different from a form of civil unrest, then yes this is just criticism. We seem to have too many redefinitions and I don't agree with any of them. We write facts as they are, we should not to give them different names and context.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be more specific as to providing an objective view on what constitutes an "echo" and a "continuity", so that all of us can surrender to the fact that we are not speaking of the same event. Can you give us a sociological definition of “echo”, which clearly differentiates from the continuity of an event? Maziotis (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Echo" as the original echo. Arriving later and much less in volume, not being the sound itself, but something that reminds of it ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no sociological basis for claiming that subdued continuation of a social phenomenon is an "echo" rather than a subdued continuation of it. This is nonsense. Xenos2008 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I know what is an echo, and all I saw in his use was an image to pass his impression of discontinuity as being clear. Maziotis (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Call it 'December 2008 Greek Riots' and stop worrying about the end date. The occasional demonstration, skirmish with the police, car burning or whatever, happened before Dec. 6 and will happen in the future. No "credible source" will ever proclaim a certain date as the "end date." Greek media speak about these events as something that happened in December, not as something ongoing.Sardath (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

International reactions

The international reactions section is misleading. I feel it should talk about how other countries felt and what they did. As of now its basically just "related actions worldwide" and it doesn't flow well from the section before where the Greek government condemns the riots to after, where people in other countries are protesting. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I changed the headings a little. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No arguments from me. Xenos2008 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Shooting

All the sources say that "the forensics concluded that the shooting was towards the group of the teenagers, though it may have been no intention to kill the boy". That is the official conclusion as it was announced. I don't understand why since the sources include the exact sentence people add the POV tag, without even mentioning it in the talk page. Please be more careful in reading the sources (though I don't understand how more obvious they should get, so that people understand there is no POV).--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One, that source is dead, and therefore unreliable until a new source is found. Two, there is conflicting information. One says that it was definitely a ricochet while the other says it was definitely a direct shot. The wording seems to allege that the forensics report overrides the ballistics and therefore attempts to conclude that the officer purposely shot towards the crowd, which may or may not be true. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new source. There is no conflict:

The ricochet doesn't mean the shot wasn't direct. Direct means that he aimed towards the boy and there was a ricochet somewhere near as the bullet went slightly off-way. The intention means that he wanted to kill the boy and the ricochet in the direct shot was an unwanted "miss", the lack of intention means that the ricochet was just an accident, since he didn't want to kill the boy. Both the forensics and the ballistics didn't make any conclusion about the intention (purpose) of the police guard, they just concluded about the way the bullet followed (direct with a ricochet).

In any case that is what the report concluded and that conclusion was announced in many sources, I will add more in the morning.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be a direct shot if it ricocheted, that would mean that it was not direct, simple as that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The report says it can, we write exactly what it says.

(Just to help you understand it, it also says that the ricochet was 40-50 cm above the road, on the right slightly on the left or right side of the boy. It means that he aimed the gun at the boy but the bullet went slightly off. The reason he did so is not clear, he might not have wanted to kill the boy, he might have wanted it to go right or left but any of the cases about the intention is not part of the report. I've added another source in English, so you might find it more useful :) )--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between firing a shot directly at someone and firing a direct shot. A direct shot means that it hit him straight on as planned, while shot directly at him means that it was fired in the direction of the boy. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Direct shot" is syntactically the same as "shooting directly". The article though is careful enough and writes "shot towards the group of teenagers", which is an exact translation of the sources. The source in English says "direct shot" anyway, just take a look.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refocus arguments...

Some want to rename the article "2008 Greek riots" while some want it to remain at the present title or even add 2009 to either. The end date comes into play because if the page is named "riots", then it has ended and there is just some lingering related violence. If the name is "civil unrest", then it continues and the main focus of the article has little to do with the shooting and more to do with general unrest and disapproval of the government. Vote for what you believe, but let's keep our responses VERY brief and to the point. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO PEOPLE. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This vote cannot stand, by wikipedia policies (notability and reliability). Please read the following to understand the case: WP:!VOTE --Lady 6thofAu (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this isn't a vote, its not like if more people support one than that is what we do. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Each person will discuss their reasoning and after everyone has spoken, someone uninvolved will read it through and decided who has the stronger argument. Please do not be so quick to flip out. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your words below are "Excuse me, this is a vote to test consensus". This doesn't seem to agree with what you say above "this isn't a vote". I'm confused by your answers and I really don't understand what this is supposed to be.

Furthermore, consensus cannot not be built by 1 external person or a group of them, that reads the arguments. The arguments certainly were not about either "2008 civil unrest in Greece" or "2008 Greek riots" only. Under any circumstances though, unrest is a fact, as sources show. There were suggestions for many things and there is no need to repeat the arguments that we've all stated above. --Lady 6thofAu (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You vote for the title that you feel fits and then justify it. No one said majority wins. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't repeat what you want me to do. Unrest is a fact based on sources, voting is against policies and it has no point.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that no one called it unrest, its that unrest took over the article about the riots. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is natural since unrest started initially with riots for the article initially to be named riots. As weeks passed though more events were reported and sources have shown that we should talk about unrest. Therefore, in the previous consensus it was decided that the article should be renamed to unrest. Now you want it to be renamed to the old title, just because unrest is unrest and it includes more things apart from riots. It's not easy to follow your thought:

• We write about unrest that includes riots,
• but you don't want it to be named unrest, which was done because it wasn't only riots
• (to which you agree)
• and you say unrest took over the article.

That's a contradiction.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The rename to "civil unrest" happenned against consensus during holidays.Period.--Michael X the White (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Its two against two, don't think that because it was changed last month you "won" and it can't go back just as easily. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really smart idea. Tell you what, let's change the name every month just so that everyone is happy about it. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The rename happened according to consensus and for my part I'm not against anyone. All I want is the best for the article and I've given sources for my claims. Of course consensus can change, but we talk and talk just because you don't provide any sources. We can't change the name or have consensus based on your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady 6thofAu (talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep at "2008 civil unrest in Greece

What is this heading supposed to be about? Are you trying to set up a unilateral voting system?Xenos2008 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename "2008 Greek riots"

• Support. This whole thing started because the death of a boy which led to violence and riots. The riots have stopped and there is just some remaining tension that I feel would work well in an aftermath section: "demonstrations continued after the end of the riots" or something like that. With this argument I also support the end date which should be the end of the riots. For example the Los Angeles riots of 1992 ended after six days, but violence continued, same case as we are presented with here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. "Civil unrest" is enormously misleading and wrong. It was renamed with no consensus during holidays, despite the warning against this. Some are mistaken, thinking that some limited events that happenned last week, some occupations and other, terrorist acts make this be a "civil unrest". However this (truly aftermath) events do not have continuity with the 2 week riots and are not enough to say the country is in state of civil unrest. Also, this article was written to cover the riots, that are notable for the reader wherever they live.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This sort of nonsense explains why nothing is ever resolved in Greece. As soon as any decisions actually are taken, a small minority decides that they are really in the majority and the whole debate should be restarted. If WP had been started in Greece, it would have been closed down within a year with bickering like this. The civil unrest and (to some extent) rioting continue, so the whole arguiment is false anyway., Just because one or two people don't like to admit (for clear political reasons) that the government is in a mess over this, is no reason for the rest of us to pay any attention. Apart from anything else, "rioting" is just simple journalistic reporting, whereas civil unrest is more analytical and appropriate. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is a vote to test consensus, there should be no arguing here. Obviously you are against the move so put your vote and reasons in the right section. We are done with discussing since it gets us nowhere. When enough people have commented, we will have someone unrelated read it over and decide who has the strongest case. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I am against voting since it is against WP policy, and you seem to think that anyone can vote to rename things, whenever they feel like it. Xenos2008 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, rename to '2008 Greek Riots'. Not easy to put a specific end date, but it was definitely over by the end of the year. 'December 2008 Greek Riots' would be best.Sardath (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And would you mind telling us what will be done with the material that does not belong in the article with such a restricted title? Do you intend to simply delete it? Xenos2008 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making unfair and unwarranted assumptions. Relevant events happening after the end of 2008 can still be included in the article.Sardath (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an assumption: you state that "it was definitely over by the end of the year", so obviously things in 2009 are excluded. The whole position you are adopting does not make sense and looks politically motivated to me. Xenos2008 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when you click edit on the main page, a message at the top suggests splitting the article since it is more than double the recommended article length, which hinders readability for those with slow internet connections. I would also support the addition of "December" since it would be hard to pinpoint an exact end date. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of political motivation are too easy to make, Xenos2008. Exactly what is it that we should consider as a signal the riots are over? Are all protests in Greece, from now to eternity, to be considered perpetuating the riots? Relevant material occurring after the end of 2008 can very well be included in a section titled "aftermath," if indeed they are relevant. Greek media and public opinion unanimously see the riots as something that happened in December 2008. If they are proven wrong, we can revise the title, but we should not be in the business of predicting the future.Sardath (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous headlines about unrest, which makes it quite notable. I've listed about 14 of the major world-wide newspapers with headlines about unrest. Riots were part of the unrest as reported by newspapers and by definition of unrest (I've looked it up in a dictionary). Newspapers continue to report major rallies related to the death of the boy (e.g. the policemen rally about violence in police forces etc.), which cannot be called aftermath and since the unrest is notable they should be included here. Therefore, changing the article title to riots is against the sources. Sadly, people like you that bring no sources come and propose that we should make original research about the event being over in order to terminate it. We can't do that and we can't change the title to make it finish and remove the events (as someone proposed before). It will finish when the rallies finish and we'll know that it's over when sources are going to report the end of this unrest/crisis. As people of those who support the move said they want content to be removed, since there are sources about the content that relate it with the article and prove that we talk about facts, I fail to see any other reason apart from POV-pushing. Unfortunately, people seem to pay no attention or respect to wikipedia policies when without any sources they want to enforce their opinion in an article. After all, that is why voting for the articles' content doesn't stand by wikipedia policies.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A completely irrrelevant point: many articles are overlong and remain so. Very weak reasoning. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant, many articles especially news are over long, that is why we have edit sections instead of editing the whole article. That has nothing to do with the title though, appart from being another attempt to remove content from the article.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote?

A vote doesn't test consensus, simple as that. Consensus doesn't mean vote and is not achieved through a poll. There are arguments, if you want confront them. What you say about start doesn't make sense, because the "unrest" made headlines and is pretty sourced, while the opposite "only riots" is just POV (and you haven't provided any sources saying that there were only riots). If you want to turn wikipedia in a pro or anti government poll, then you're just don't know how it works.

To your "start" "argument", in an analogy it wouldn't make sense to say that the 2nd World War didn't happen in Greece for example, because the invasion that triggered it had nothing to do with Greece and it's much more documented. What you say about "start" doesn't make sense, the unrest is well documented.

Read the arguments above and try to provide sources to your claims.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote is that there should be no vote, because we had a discussion and consensus before Xmas and the losers in an election do not get to vote again just because they lost! LOLOL Xenos2008 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been described in WP:!VOTE that:

• If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, people would be tempted to also use voting with respect to articles. People have been known to call a vote on whether or not a fact is true. We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters.
• Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can obviously not be overridden by straw polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is ultimately pointless.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but this is not a "vote" in the sense of elections (majority wins) but this is just to see who wants what and why.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article has some point of view issues that should be addressed before the removal of the notices. It would be near impossible to list every instance, so the best way to attack this would be for someone to read it through and neutralize as much as possible. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't cite even a single instance, so your claim of POV is itself a POV. For my part, and I wrote nothing on the page, it is not obvious that there is such a problem. Xenos2008 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you mention what you think is POV, the POV tag cannot stand. I don't find anything to be POV and apparently nobody has addressed a single issue.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong and if either of you remove the POV tag, I will report you for vandalism or disruptive editing, as several editors have made it clear that there is a POV issue. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, clearly we are wrong because you are right and don't have to give any reasons. The POV is from the supporters of the ND government, presumably including you. You are required to give some specific reasons, or else the tag will be removed. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So Grk1011/Stephen, you expect the POV tag to stand because of threats? You didn't mention a single issue, unless you mention an issue (one of those many to be addressed as you say) we assume there is no issue.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough explanations have been already given throughout the talk page. It is not our concern that you ...fail to see them.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What we see on the talk page is your own POV, nothing else. If that is all you can come up with, forget it. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You claim that the issues are hard to list, but you can't mention even one. Even you don't know why you put the POV tag.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Just in case someone doesn't know, when there is a source about a quote you don't delete the quote and the text along with it. If you think there is some source missing use the appropriate tag, deleting immediately the text is at least bad manners.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually such edits are fine according to WP:V. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are they fine according to WP:V? Did you see any unreliable sources? Did you see anything without a source? What exactly did you see? The whole passage was deleted "because it was outdated", verifiability doesn't say anything like that as far as I know.

I don't mean to sound bad, but you seem to have a hysteria removing as much content as you can, with or without sources (though I don't see any without) then you come in the talk page and claim the event has ended. That's a really bad attitude.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to you it's also fine to put the same text in different sections on a Talk page, regardless of whether it's relevant. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fine if text is irrelevant and per WP:V.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots

With the obvious absense of the vast majority of the contributors who have written most of this article, with the "warning" that this here would happen, a "consensus" was "made" and a rename after it. So, I propose renaming back to 2008 Greek riots mainly because this was not civil unrest but purely riots; civil unrest implies (if not means) unrest and endless rioting in the entire country, like a mini-revolt. And we all know that after the first the riots troubled almost solely the city of Athens, only at night. Also, demonstrations are not part of any "civil unrest" and are something that never really ends in Greece. Let me also remind you that some of the demonstrations (GSEE,ADEDY) were already planned prior to the boy's death. Also, let me simply say that "riots" is the most common term. For example, Google gives you 2.640.000 results for 2008 greek riots, while 2008 Greek civil unrest gives you 136.000 --Michael X the White (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I dispute your definition of "civil unrest". This term very adequately defines what has been happening, whereas the word "riots" does not. Furthermore, the idea that you are trying to promote -- that there has been, and is, no civil unrest -- is your personal point of view and somewhat pro-government, I would add. The available information makes it clear that many of the people involved are seriously dissatisfied with the current government and its policies, and the demonstrations and riots are not focused on the killing of the boy in Exarcheia. The fact that one or two demonstrations had already been scheduled is tangential to the case. The results from Google are also irrelevant, especially as their interpretation is difficult. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for "riots" was reached on the first few days. After a couple of weeks it became (in consensus) a civil unrest. Maziotis (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for the reason described in a previous post i made on this talk page on section Riots vs. Civil Unrest?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not only my opinion that it was riots and not civil unrest but the opinion of most editors around here. Also, as NikoSilver and PelThal said, "civil unrest" is too heavy and too dramatic and I think that civil unrest is your personal point of view. If you happen to check the "Beggining" section, you will see that the boy's demise sparked the riots as there are always people ready to riot and just need a reason to. It is not disputed that they're not satisfied with the government. Now, the results from Google would be irrelevant if 2008 Greek riots gave you 100.000 results and 2008 civil unrest in Greece gave you 99.000. But the first one actually has 2,5 million more results!!!! Doesn't that obviously prove that riots is the most common use???--Michael X the White (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is undisputable that there are "riots" going on, and that that is what people are interested in. The google search test only shows us what people are searching, not what they believe it is happening. As an encyclopedia, we should put things into context. Most people don't even use the term "civil unrest", ever. That "test" is statistically meaningless. Maziotis (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Maziotis: I hadn't thought of it like that before. "Civil unrest" is a broader social analysis, whereas "Greek riots" is a sort of newspaper headline. WP should aspire to be more than a glorified newspaper! Xenos2008 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the civil unrest term can only be used to describe the first one and a half weeks of demonstrations if we want the article to include the entire period of events following the death of Alexis we need to rename to a characterization less "strong" than that.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Test"??? Who mentioned a test?? It is undisputable that there were riots a few weeks ago but I can't see them today, except some limited events. Google shows how much a phrase is used, not how many are searching for it. If people do not use the term, why should WP?? We should use what people will search here for.

By the way, this is not about what WP should or shouldn't be according to each of us.

Please check WP:Name:3, 2.1 and WP:Naming conventions (events) 2, 2.1 --Michael X the White (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see here any good arguments against renaming back to "2008 Greek riots", so, unless there are some, I'll ask the move soon. ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot see anything is your problem, and apparently nobody else's. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You just do not seem to get it, do you?? Wikipedia is not about democracy!! It is not about what most people want or care about!!--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You alone are not "most people". Wikipedia has to do with arguments but the fact is that you are the only one that wants to remove content (by excluding it with the title) without actually providing any arguments apart from the statement "I can't see here any good arguments", but that is not an argument.

If you still can't see the arguments refer to:

• "I hadn't thought of it like that before. "Civil unrest" is a broader social analysis, whereas "Greek riots" is a sort of newspaper headline. WP should aspire to be more than a glorified newspaper!" This broader social analysis gives us the ability to include all the related facts and be more accurate and neutral. For example the peaceful protests and demonstrations cannot be considered "riots", but they clearly are (as sources say) related to the event.
• Given the fact that there are sources relating all the events that are not riots to the event, we should better keep the title as "civil unrest", which describes them. The idea to concentrate only on riots as nothing else had happened is at least for me (since it was included in a statement by the prime minister) pro-government, Wikipedia though must be neutral. The "nothing happened, except from some people throwing stones and burning" has been the official explanation given for a long time by the government whenever a big demonstration is held, which has met strong criticism by all other parties. This kind of dispute though has no position in wikipedia, we are not here to decide pro or anti government. Since there are sources for related events we write them, and select the title that describes them. "Riots" according to any dictionary doesn't. --Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also support a move back to "2008 Greek riots". Despite the fact that there was more to it than riots, it started out as a riot and that is why it is known. The "civil unrest" that followed I would call more aftermath than the actual event. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the guideline the title should contain what happened. The fact is that more events that were not riots happened (either contributing or directly related to the event), thus they should be included. "Unrest" achieves this, "riots" fails.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The riots are notable. The riots were known to the globe. This is the riots we wrote this article about, it is not about the riots and some demonstrations! But do not try to change both title and context here, overdramatising things. Do you know why this was "in the news"?? Because it was about the notable riots. Even by claiming this is a "broader social analysis" is POV. That very statement. Still, if you want a broader social analysis, you can have a "2008 broader social analysis on events that took place in Greece" seperate article. And what the reader is interested about is last month's riots. Now, you could speculate about whether that was civil unrest or not, but still, it is not known as civil unrest, but as "riots". And since you check the conventions, WP:NAME mentions "Use common names of persons and things". "Civil unrest in Greece" is both not known and overdramatising POV. Also, we have to be precise (and not as vague as in "civil unrest") and also have the title the reader is most aware of. Also the convention for events mentions "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing". It is clear that riots fits much more to this than "civil unrest", which is terribly misleading.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The unrest is also notable with all those many sources that mention the demonstrations etc., e.g. BBC headline says unrest, while it includes riots. Headlines in various reliable sources are neither "not known" nor "overdramatized". The article includes sections about unrest, riots, demonstration after them etc. The sources clearly say and underline the relation between the riots, the demonstrations, the economy etc. Do you have any sources saying that these are not related? As far as I know this is the POV expressed only by the right-wing government. No reliable secondary source says that the events included in the article are not connected, in fact in the article there are many sources that say they are. Also, take a look at other sections in the talk page.

Do you know why this was "in the news"?? Because it was about the notable riots. That is your POV, which sources do you have to support it? I don't speculate about the unrest, sources say so, look in the article and above.

Even by claiming this is a "broader social analysis" is POV. No it's not, an event such as this should be covered in an encyclopedia with details and as much neutrality as possible, this is called "social analysis" by definition. Btw, this event is certainly not a person and definately not a thing, that is why I looked at the events' guide which is more precise. Do you disagree with this guide?

Do you still think that the events presented in the article are only riots and not unrest? I know they are not only riots and there are sources that support them as unrest. Therefore, "civil unrest" fits better than riots for the English speakers who are aware of the events. Since "riots" are something included to the article, the best solution would be to have a redirection (as e.g. the lawyer's name also redirects to this article for example), but certainly the events presented in the article are not only riots.

So, you can't call the event "riots", because clearly sources say they are not just riots.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So being "in the news" because it was about the riots is my own POV???? Check all the previous talk and you'll find out!! And still you will see that renaming was discussed and we consensus was supporting riots, till, of course, holidays came, so you found a chance to create a consensus in our absence. But sorry it seems you appeared here after we've done all the work in this article to just rename it to 2008-2009. (It is amazing for a person with 72 edits to have 56 of them about the same subject and article (the riots) while 42 of them are in the talk page!!) Anyway, just check the archives to see what we had decided. Did anyone mention that the demonstrations were not related??? Of course they were! We all know that they demonstrated for the boy's demise. Yet the notable thing for which the article was written is the riots. The demonstrations, which do not interest the reader as much as the riots are to be briefly mentioned in the article. If you upgrade the demonstrations to as notable as the riots, then you undermine the notability of the article as a whole. Also, not all related things have to be explained in detail in the same article; and some things (the demonstrations) do not have the notability to be explained in detail at all. Also, please have a look again at the naming convention and what I've said about it, beause you seem to think I disagree with it. Look, this article had been about the riots, and was notable for it. Now, changing the title, then change the context and then say "that's the context so the title can't be changed" makes no sense at all. What is done can be undone. (That means at least "4th and 5th week" sections will go.)--Michael X the White (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about the riots, the fact that there are some continuing demonstrations does not mean that it is all of the sudden the main topic of the article. The riots are over, this is aftermath. It should be a small section, titled as such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "So being "in the news" because it was about the riots is my own POV????" Obviously, since other people believe that it was in the news because of the unrest. As it seems you fail to provide any sources, while there are plenty about the opposite, which have been already provided above. What are your sources?
2. What do my edits have to do with the talk here? Please be polite and don't try to diminish anyone's contribution. I'd question other persons edits, but that will come when I'll have time to request a checkuser.
3. My question was clear: "Do you still think that the demonstrations with all those sources are not notable?" 4th and 5th week sections have plenty of reliable, secondary sources to be notable. If you don't know what notability it is really a problem, please read WP:NOTE and understand that "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it.". With that in mind answer to the following:

Since the facts are notable, important and with many sources they should be mentioned. Since they are related they'd better be in the same article. Why is it that you don't want them in the article?

1. As I said the naming convention applies to persons and things. This is neither a person, not a thing. The guideline is specific about events, which is what we talk here about.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for unrest:

• CNN
• BBC
• BBC (2)
• Reuters
• Guardian
• Spiegel
• Deutsche Welle
• Welt
• National Post
• France24
• ABC - Australia
• Seattle Times
• Times of Malta
• Thaindian News

Unrest is notable, since there are so many sources.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, we can, as an encyclopedia, use news sites and channel sites as sources for ITN stuff because they report events. Nothing more complicated than that. A riot is an event and can be reported by the news and we can use that here. We cannot however do the same thing for some situations because a situation is not one single event and might not be seen as existing by everyone, while reported events cannot be challenged. So we cannot use the news here for what you call a "broader social analysis". Lrt me make it more clear. Nobody can doubt the riots (events) but civil unrest may be challenged (situation). Also, that is not what notable means. It must be notable to the reader. Riots is the word most frequently used and people know the situation better with the name of "riots". You could find a thousand sources from BBC to Thaindian news to nes of north west Zambia but still, are they more than those referring to all of this as "riots"?? And still, what is meant by "the riots are notable" is that what people are interested about, what they search and what they've heard of is the smashing and burning and lotting of about 15+ days within December. That's what I'm talking about.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you cannot organize the references in a way to form an idea of your own, for that would be original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but this is not the case. Each reference is a source (strong ones, in this case) for covering the event as social unrest. There is no synthesizing, as you are suggesting. Otherwise, we would all be in a stance of original research when we pick any source to write in the article. Maziotis (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)