Talk:Eleftherios Venizelos/Archive 2

Recent edits

That caused the confrontation from the part of the Greek army stationed in the city, leading into (what R. Clogg identifies as) an ignominious retreat to their ships, and the bombardment of parts of the city.

"ignominious" is inflammatory language and not fitted in WP. Also

colonial character of the operation, the humiliated withdraw and finally the...

It does not make sense at all! Britain was colonial empire and acted as it should have acted. It would have worth mentioning if had acted otherwise. It is clear that you want to present them as the bad guys. Allow the actions/facts to speak for themselves! Again, "humiliated" how so... the Greek forces were 20000 versus 2000 of the Allies. I can this pathetic victory.

You mention that the Allies used the ships found in Salamis... any references?

Please use the references properly. And learn to collaborate. I had all the good intention to work with you. Do not ruin it.A.Cython (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• "ignominious" is the word that R.Clogg in his book "Cambridge Concise Histories" is using to describe that particular event, thus the "humiliated". I understand you are believing that Cambridge Press is publishing books with inflammatory content. File a protest on behalf the Allies.
• Britain thought Greece as a "colony" since Navarino as "protecting" power, is that also a new for you? To have colonies is one thing, to act colonially in an officially free country of Europe is another thing.
• About the ships, since are also news for you I will put ref--Factuarius (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Again, "humiliated" how so... the Greek forces were 20000 versus 2000 of the Allies": ask R.Clogg he knows better from both of us. He is writting books for the Cambridge not we.--Factuarius (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "It is clear that you want to present them as the bad guys": No you are misunderstanding my intentions, I do believing that in fact were very good guys

• WP does not care if Clogg used that to describe the retreat. It is inflammatory and it should avoided! In addition, we do not know what exactly happened, so how can we describe it? The author might wanted to spicy up his book for more sales. I do not know, i can't know what happened then (no time machine) therefore the only alternative is to stay on facts not opinions! Chester and Seligman wrote very close (in time) to the events and interviewed people who lived the events. For that reason and that offer a more detailed description they are more trustworthy than a book that spends 3-4 lines to describe the events.
• Britain was a colonial power we know that, there is no reason to repeat it! Also, it was natural to behave the way it behaved. It existed as a colonial power for centuries with no crisis troubling her, thus it is totally unnatural to assume that the colonial character was reason for the crisis. Besides no source describes this, which makes it original research or WP:POV. Remember, that for the Britons did not cared much (or enough to cause a crisis) of a minor incident in one of their colonies (and much less for Greece which was not one of their colonies). They had investments yes, that was enough for the bankers and politicians to care but not the public.
• Please, use the references properly! The reason I removed them was because they did not portray the events properly. Some were mentioning the bombardment some not. That is way I wrote the note "i".
• You have reverted my edits more 4 times! More than WP:3RR rule. WP is a collaborate effort, selfish acts without proper support from academic sources properly used in the text do not stay WP for long. Most of the text is written by me, but other users have contributed significantly. The article can be improved further. It is up to you to help and not degrade it.A.Cython (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rv 3 times you rv 4 (you are not count your goodmorning which was a total rv of everything I had write)
• That was ignominious is proved from the dismissal of the admiral and the political earthquake it produced both in France and England for whatever you are accusing Clogg (να δούμε μέχρι πού θα φτάσεις γιά να γλιτώσεις τους Αγγλογάλλους από τη ξεφτίλα)
• So what? That's why WP gives you the opportunity to use more than one ref. What you are expecting to use only one, the Venizelos official site?
• I understand from what you saying that you are feeling to have a property here. It's OK but why haven't you informed me from the start not to bother to edit it, instead of asking me for refs if you are accepting only the refs you like?

--Factuarius (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW since "most of the article is written by you" do I have your permission to explain their origin, where they came from, when, why, and what language they were spoke, also for the other major ethnicities in the Greek held Macedonia during the 1st B.W.(Vlachs, Gypsies, Slavs and Turks)? Or the txt must mention such infos only for the Jews? Because when I reduced their extended info (for such an article), you rv it also. If you have to deal with all the nationalities in equally terms you have to say more than their national names. I mean do you have any particular reason in treating them differently?--Factuarius (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have copyedited the section, as promised and requested, adding also a few details (esp. on the anti-Venizelist riots that followed). I have toned down the language a bit, whilst retaining the bulk of the arguments. Personally I find the discussion on guilt, right of interference, etc. pointless. Whatever we may believe, we are not writing an article about the history of foreign intervention in Greece, or about its (very real) semi-colonial relationship to Britain. Let's stick to reporting the facts, and let the readers draw their conclusions. One point I'd like to make is that the section on the ensuing crises should a) be properly sourced (especially in Britain, following the Somme, Asquith's head was bound to roll, I don't really know how much the Athens debacle caused it) and b), IMO, be transferred to the Noemvriana article, since it does not have that much of a direct relevance to the subject of this article. Just my 2 (Euro)cents. Regards, Constantine ✍ 14:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Using more than one reference is ok.
• I did not rv you edits, I improved them, according to the rules of WP.
• Οι Αγγλογάλλοι έπεσαν στον λάκο μόνοι τους... αλλά πέσανε πάνω μας και η μόνη ελπίδα να βγούμε από το λάκο είναι η αλήθεια (τουλάχιστον όσο πιο κοντά σε αυτήν).
• What is not ok is to synthesise a story by combining different sources, which offer only one side of the story. For example, After, ✍ edits we have a phrase

Subsequently, on 16 November, the Allies presented a new ultimatum to the Athens government, demanding the surrender of a significant amount of the Greek Army's equipment. When that too was turned down, the Allied commander, Vice Admiral Louis Dartige du Fournet, sent marine forces to land in Athens, attempting to occupy the city.

It is still not right. Clogg writes that Allies wanted to enforce the neutrality in regions controlled by the royalists. In other words, the word "neutralise" means that the royalists were saying they are neutral but they were doing anything possible to damage the safety of Allied forces. Of course they would do such things; they wanted to insure that Germany would win, since Germany promised North Epirus for the Greek neutrality (even though according to Gibbons it was promised to Bulgaria as well). If you read Chester he presents the events prior 1 December with documentation of that era. Note that this is important because it shows whether or not their actions were justified, e.g. look at the danger the royalist government created to Serbian army passing by Corfu, or when they delayed reinforcements the Allies needed. Based on sources/events it was the royal government that was playing a fair game. Either they were very stupid or very clever and I think the latter one. According to Seligman, we do not know the exact motive of why the troops landed and hence the note. Were they invited by the king or not! Factuarius confirms that the Allied force numbered 2000 versus 20000 of the Greek forces... so why on earth a much smaller force attempts to capture a defensive position occupied by a much larger one. It makes no sense (especially in an era where defensive positions with machine guns were unstoppable)! This a total contradiction! It totally twists what the sources say! What is needed are sources that analyse the events step by step and not with a couple of lines to support the royalist version, because actually all the sources actually support the Venizelist version to different degree.

And since there are two different versions of the story I think, or what I did was simply state the pure facts in the man=in article i.e. Allies landed, armed conflict, retreat, bombard of the city and then use "note i" to reflect different versions of the story! A.Cython (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, "enforcing the neutrality" may have been fine, but taking over the fleet, landing troops in Athens etc speaks also of a motive to force the royalist government to come over to the Allied side. Frankly, from a legal and moral standpoint, the Allied actions are indefensible. Then again, they won the war, so they are somehow "justified". On the other hand, the royalist government committed many grave errors, but if the Germans had won the war, they would have been justified, and Venizelos vilified... Anyway, before I too drift off to political rants, where does it say that the king invited the Allied marines into Athens?! As for why they did it in the face of a larger enemy force, well, I guess Fournet never though the Greeks would dare to oppose the will and representatives of the Powers, certainly not with the Allied fleet poised to bombard Athens (which it eventually did)... I don't think their purpose was the complete occupation of the city, but it was certainly a military demonstration designed to force the submission of the Greek government to their demands. That is plainly evident. Anyhow, I do not really understand what you are opposed to here. What exactly bothers you? What phrasing would you suggest? Constantine ✍ 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The pro Venizelist version where the King saying that invited the Allies is at: Seligman, 1920 p. 138.
• "I guess Fournet never though the Greeks": is this a speculation or a fact? The fact remains that the Allies landed and we do not know why!
• No the initial presence of the navy was not bring the royal government with their side but to make sure they will not be backstabbed by a pro-German government from the South while they have troops facing the German-Burgarian army on the north. I can provide sources on that issue.
• Justified... ok maybe my word was too strong here, but at least to have a version of the story without contradictions. At the moment we use the pro-royalist version of the story with sources that are pro-Venizelist (to a certain degree)... that is not right. Since we do know what really happened (maybe the Allies were justified maybe not)
• can we stick to pure facts and then provide the two versions of the story to the readers + the sources. I propose the following or the one I have and talk removing constantly:

On 1 December an Allied force landed in Athens, where there was an armed confrontation with royalist army stationed in the city, leading into a retreat to their ships; during the confrontation parts of the city were bombarded by the Allied navy.

It simply describes the facts without conflicting with the two versions of the story. The two versions are described in the "note i". Clean and simple. A.Cython (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not intent to maintain my last edits in the main text, because the language is strong or emotional. It is for the same reasons (my dispute with talk) that words like "humiliating" and "ignominious" should be avoided. I can easily bombard the article with even more sources (newspapers, books and academic journals) presenting what they say, but that is not what I want. What I want is to be written in a neutral way stating only the facts and presenting all sides (both royalists and venizelists). Maybe this leads to a boring article, but it is neutral, clear and easy to understand. WP is encyclopaedia and not literature or historiography. Stating that the Allies bombarded the Royal palace in retaliation is pro-royalist version of the story. Neglecting why Allies were worried by the actions of the royalist government, which allowed the Bulgarians and Germans to capture the fort Rupel, deny the use of railroad to the Serbians (who where supposed to be allies) etc and thus placed their navy close to Athens to insure that there will be no backstabbing is also a pro-royalist version of the story. Focusing on the ill actions of the Allies glorifying the royalists with supreme victory that humiliated the Allies is the essence of the royalist version. Sure the Allies wanted to win the war and didn't give a damn about the welfare of Greece. Their anxiety to win drive them to all these despicable actions! But the royalist were not saints either. Now you may agree or disagree, I do not care. I only care what the bloody sources say.A.Cython (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A "mirror my mirror" case

For some days now I tried to do some edits in the present article on entirely good faith. But I soon noticed a rather strange situation . Every edit I had made that qualified Venizelos (such as Wilson's opinion, his right about the B.War objectives, his diplomatic efficiency, etc..) passed unattached (with or without refs). Every word that touched the WW1 Allies (their activities, intentions, or even the more obvious, their defeat) my edit became immediately major issue even leading to edit war (with or without refs). Thus, the conclusion of that ridiculous situation is that in the current article everyone is free to say as many good things for Venizelos as he likes but not one bad word for his Allies. Cannot imagine what would have happened in case of a bad word for Venizelos himself. I found this strange complex of Venizelos canonization and Allied-apology policy, anachronistic, entirely politicized unhistorical and full of animosity, thus completely un-wikipedian. My fear is that this article is running almost entirely upon a small number of dedicated and fanatical Greek Venizelists that by using excuses of every kind, discouraging every not-enough-pro-Venizelist editor to collaborate in order to protect their hagiography.

Because I do believe that in WP everyone must have the right to edit every article if that edit is based upon solid references, the common sense and the WP rules; because I do believe that WP policies is not encouraging taboos; and because I do not believe in the infallible (for us or Venizelos), I would like to ensure the fellow Greek editors that I will put every effort to work together with them in the next period (weeks, months or years) to achieve the quality status that such a personality's article deserves in every objective way necessary, without any national, historical or political bias. --Factuarius (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem was not your edits. Repeatedly, I mentioned that your edits are "appreciated" (at your talk page). However, the problem was the language used to describe the events and the fact you were negating the description of primary sources or presenting only one point of view. What I tried to do with your edits was to fit them according to WP rules (it would be a good idea to read them first) i.e. no strong language, neutral point of view of the events etc etc. Additionally, the facts that you repeatedly reverting my edits here, here, here, here and here and insisting that the Allies take the full blame when we have (primary or modern) sources saying Allies do not take the full blame alone without showing academic references that focus on this event with more than a couple of sentences, then you only show a systematic vandalism towards to the article. I told you to read Seligman twice who provides two versions of the story. Seligman and Chester are our best primary sources we have and most works that came after are based on those two scholars. For example, at the latest book, "Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship" describes the event based on Chester: that royal irregular forces attacked the Allies, when the Allied forces were only intended to pick the ammunition and not capturing the city. You ignored me and the sources and continued to insist of on (probably) your pro-something version of the story with no references clearly supporting you (in fact in some places contradicting your story).

When in WP we have a situation where the same event is described differently in different sources then what you try to do is to include both in the article as objectively as possible! WP does not set policy, WP is not a place for propaganda, WP is not a place for correcting the mistakes of the past or anything else. WP is an encyclopaedia that states the facts from reliable sources in a neutral language. Now if you cannot do this then do not edit in WP.A.Cython (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you in confirming everything I wrote above. (as for who rv who:[1] [2] [3] [4] one of your ref links is fake bore to find which) --Factuarius (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Now show me the references and I will write your POV. A.Cython (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was meaning your rv links, (not ref link -my mistake) but I agree that every ref that is pro-Venizelist or pro-Constantine must leave together with its ref's sentence, and to be replaced with neutral sources. I am starting working on that. What is your opinion about Kitromilides or about using historical studies like the " Life of Venizelos, with a letter from His Excellency M. Venizelos" as refs? --Factuarius (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then can you explain why your description of the events and motives follow the pro-royalist story? And what is neutral? Is Markezinis neutral or Chester? You cannot answer that. My changes that I was trying to do (you may call them dry) are actually a description with no contradictions by any version. Now you may do not understand it, but if you haven't ignored me and you have read the references you wouldn't have changed my edits.

Kitromilides is ok because it not written during the troubling and emotional periods. I avoid Greek authors because they biased either to one side or the other. Of course foreign sources are not perfect but they slightly more objective. Seligman provides both side to the story and Chester provides documentation where his arguments are based.A.Cython (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not pro-something. Not pro-royalist nor pro-Venizelist. I am not thinking in black-and-white terms and I am not feeling obliged to apologize for anyones actions as you childishly feeling. Thus I am not ready to allow a misrepresentation of facts happened 90 years before because if I will do it I would take a part. As for Markezinis, its a very common problem in Greece to characterize people without being really informed about them. If you really had read him, you would be able to find out that in fact is clearly critical for the royalist actions during that period (1915-1922) and pro-Venizelist. But although that, he is serious enough to give all the story and after that to say his opinion about. If you can spare time from your Allied-apologizing fever read him, it will significantly help your bias' wiki-activity of half-story editing war. --Factuarius (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly Markezinis is more reliable than several other sources including academic journals? Is it because you say so? Why Seligman and Chester are not reliable? Oh... maybe.. they are foreigners (less chances to be emotional) and wrote very close to the events. And if I remember Clapidas said Markezinis' book although wonderful it is too much pro-royalist. Right. But when you have two sides of the story you try to present them both! You only try to present the pro-loyalist. I need to finish reading some other sources about the events but afterwards I will write it in a neutral way. If you have a problem show me sources and we will try to include them. But it will not pro-Venizelist or pro-royalist.A.Cython (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Markezinis was pro-royalist due to his political ideology (although middle). And I have said that to you before Cplakidas did it. But about the Schism is clearly pro-venizelist (although middle) and in his history is giving extensively all the facts before taking any position. That's why his study is a major source for all the later works. either pro-venizelist, pro-royalist or neutral. Find it and READ IT before speak for it. The fact that the article before my edits was mentioning nothing about the "Noemvriana" -such a significant incident to understand the period-, is evident about your political-oriented editing or -at best- your lack of knowledge about that period. The political motivation and/or the lack of thorough knowledge about historical issues always generate fanaticisms which is also evident in your reaction. I hope for you to be young so your reaction to be understandable and to have time to change your one-sided view to a more neutral one. Since I by myself had a similar view on many things of that period back in my '20s. --Factuarius (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

1) My edits started from Feb 2008 and re-writing from almost nothing. Any help is greatly appreciated to expand it. It is a bloody collective effort (or at it is supposed to be). So try to understand what I am telling you. You wanted "humiliated" and "ignotions" and by your arguments we end up in a pro-Venivelist description simply because there more reliable sources. Do they describe the truth, maybe... maybe not. If you remember correct I did not removed the substance of your edits. I just place it under the WP style.

2) You describe Markezinis as if he was God or something. I read at some point and I found his arguments not very convincing. You say potato I say tomato. It does not matter because (for one more time) we need to focus on the facts from multiple sources (including Markezinis) that everybody agree and then and only then say ok guys some other events we do know however there are different versions of the story. And then we will present them both versions. Maybe, Markezinis is 100% correct... maybe but you do not know that, and i do not know that and nobody knows that. There is a good reason why WP chooses the neutral path so that people are not misled or evoke emotions at them.

3) I honesty do not understand why by removing say "ignominious" you make the article more credible or even accurate. You do not. You may get your satisfaction but when say an American or Japanese will read he/she will be suspicious and disregard the article altogether. It is like when someone is trying to persuade you by yelling and saying nasty words at you. Will you change your mind? No.. none will. If you really do want use such a description go to the Greek wikipedia. This is the english one (and i hate to say it but also the international) and we need to write for people to read from all kinds of backgrounds. It does not matter that Clogg used it because then it is a slippery slope than to include all kinds of descriptions from different sources (sometimes contradicting) leading to completely degrading the article. You may feel you are right but since anyone can edit a consensus must be found. And you do not want to enter into the game how many reliable sources A and sources B. Or even what is reliable. Seligman (unlike Chester who takes a pro-Venizelist position Seligman offer both sides) is by far more reliable than Markezinis because he wrote during the events (Markezinis was 8 years old) and he was not Greek i.e. being emotional and taking sides.

4) Do you understand what I am telling you? I think that I stupid or something that I (in all my previous posts) say A and you understand B or C. And yes, It is upsetting seeing you not collaborating and degrading the work of more than a year and not just mine but many other people. You insist in one version of the story when there are mainly two. And in fact there are more sources on the one you want to hide. You might not believe one of them but others do not believe what you believe. Others now may do not want neither side of the story. They are interested in plain facts. You must respect all of them equally. I might be ignorant "bag full of water" but at least I read the bloody sources and try to understand what the sources say. Then I write to WP whether I like or not.

5) I do not have a view about the events. I look at the sources and write about them. Can you do the same? Can you use your energy to improve the article and in a civilised way we have constructive collaboration?

6) Here I give you my hand and apologise if I offend you. I only ask you in return to understand that we need to focus on facts based not only one source but that of many.A.Cython (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1 You said that most of the article was your work. So it is also your responsibility in omitting noemvriana one of the most significant event of the period that's why I told you so.
• 2 You, continually chased Markezinis objectivity without having read it and I, tried to explain why was a reliable study.
• 3 I insisted in the "ignominious" word because the character of the withdrawal is a very key issue to someone in understanding the next events and reactions from both sides. In fact if it was not out of subject of the article I would insisted more on that ignominious withdrawal because that incident is in fact of a historical significant because it ended a word wide way of how the Great Powers of the era were deal with the smaller nations, historically known as the “gunboat diplomacy”. Greece itself during the 19th century had suffered many times that barbarous way of coercion on the hands of the Great Powers, read about.
• 4 The problem with you is that you first write then you are getting annoyed and then you are reading but only to defend the position you had when you knew nothing about. If you knew from the start at least what you now know your would reacted differently and much of the friction would avoided.
• 5 I did the homework on the matter for many years and for some even taking the wrong part on the issue. Now I know that the operation was a hideous try of enforcement of the will of some Great Powers into a small country. Nothing more nothing less. And at 2009 I am determined to say what this operation really was and to oppose the enforcement of a Great Powers' apologizing view upon the story. As a citizen of that ταλαιπωρημένη από τις Μ.Δυνάμεις χώρα. You are accuse me continually because of that at being pro-royalist, that's your stupidity not mine. I know that I am not stupid (enough to be royalist) and royalist, whatever you say. But that's mine issues.
• 6 I am enough time in WP and I have searched enough for sources to know that everyone can find sources to say anything about anything. Do you want to find you sources that both Venizelos and Constantine were agents taking money to do what the did (“not one but many”)? What that means that I am entitled to put it into the article and to insist on that because is multiple sourced? Will you accept it? What you will say me in such a case? Try to figure that. What you must do about is to read and then to think clearly and objectively what really happened and want to do about. To be an effective apologizer of events than even the today's Britons or French don't want to remember or support an objective and sharp narration of the events. It was the same then, because of the politics half the Greeks became the useful idiots for the Central Powers and the other half for the other Powers and we seen the results. Read, think before fight and then if necessary fight, not the revers as you are doing now. --Factuarius (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Either I cannot speak or you are blind.

1) I wish I could have written it much earlier but I have a real life as well. I would be delighted if you could it for all of us, but you must follow the bloody rules.

2) How do you know what kind of retread was it? You do not know that? How says that? Clogg was not there and does not provide a reference either. And even if we take his word there other sources equally valid saying a different story. But what about the word "humiliated" you do not even have source for that and yet you insist. You admit you are biased. This is your problem you bring your issues in the article. Period.

3) Did I not say that I have read Markezinis (at least a part of it). It is not Bible, and Bible has errors/contradictions you know. And even I do not feel comfortable with his arguments I am willing to include it in WP. I shout it. Now, why you cannot accept any other source?

4) Why you are sensitive with the Allies? They did what did because they wanted to win the war, like everybody i.e. royalists, Venizelists, Bulgarians, Serbians, etc... "there is no good or evil on the thinking of it" they had their share that led these events. All! Let the facts speak for themselves, there is no need to use such language in the main text.

5) About sources, since you have experience as you say then answer me because you constantly avoiding my questions such as how you decide which sources are reliable and which are not. Say is Kitromilides or Seligman or even Ion T. P. who writes at The American Journal of International Law an academic journal are reliable? Are you claiming they are wrong. Under what expertise you make that claim? I certainly I do not have that and I doubt any other has unless he/she a scholar. Kitromilides to uses Chester to describe the events of conflict. Have you read Chester? Oh I forgot, it is a conspiracy theory like area 51 or something?

6)

Do you want to find you sources that both Venizelos and Constantine were agents taking money to do what the did (“not one but many”)? What that means that I am entitled to put it into the article and to insist on that because is multiple sourced? Will you accept it?"

If it is from reliable sources and accepted by academics that there are academic journal publications supporting it. Then yes it is a valid theory and must be included along with other valid theories (if there are). But what you have also admitted is that you are doing original research. I will advise you to write to a journal rather than in WP.

7) You only so far presented insults without presenting a single valid argument. I am sorry that I am not worthy of your intelligence, and it was my fault that I believed that you have understanding. To me you are acting so biased it is like you are trying to fork pro-royalist propaganda all around. Your actions speak for themselves. I was kind enough not go to administrators immediately. And let me tell you a fact. In the following weekend I will fix the text and if you revert it again I will make request for fellow WP-pedians (probably there might be foreigners as well the ones you hate so much) to sort it out according to WP rules. Are you satisfied now?A.Cython (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote it but eventually came into a war from you against me
• I know it from Markezinis detailed description of the events and Clogg's Cambridge published book. Every ignominious retreat is humiliated. That's new only to you.
• Still don't believe you have read it.
• I am not sensitive with the Allies. You are.
• About sources you have problem with them. You are tried to discredit Markezinis in being pro-royalist and Clogg's Cambridge University Press book in possibly writing things in trying to sell more books!
• Since you are insisting, I will. And since you will work for the article at the weekend take a look what Dr. Richard Lewinsohn says about [5] p.137-8
• About Kitromilides you must also take a look what Venizelos presented to say to the British ambassador (Elliott) in Athens “Greece's policy is quite simply to conform absolutely to the advice of Sir Edward Grey”, a key event that you must also include to the article since you are so fun of the author.
• a)You called me stupid in your previous post and now you are accuse me in insulting you. b)I am not royalist and don't you ever again call me so, that's my last warning. c)Thanks for your kindness. d)Do whatever you want and sameway I'll do whatever I believe it necessary. e) Cheap trick: off course I am doing original research as anyone, but I write according to the sources. Lie: Never said that I am biased, to the contrary you are. f) Let start real work about Venizelos (article) we will end up more wise.
• Ποτέ δεν επιθυμούσα να ανοίξω το βόθρο των παρασκηνίων του Εθνικού Διχασμού και μάλιστα σε μια διεθνή εγκυκλοπαίδεια αλλά δεν καταλαβαίνεις τίποτα. Ίσως γιατί δεν ξέρεις τίποτα. Μάθε.

--Factuarius (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• You know the events from Markezinis... right... and Markezinis is the god that knows everything with absolute truth... and all mortals are wrong: Kitromilides, Seligman, Chester, Βεντήρης, George Leon, Ν. Πετσάλης, Doros Alastos, Δημήτριος Πουρναράς, Theodore Ion just to name a few. Right? What I trying to tell you is that there are different versions of the story and both are needed in WP. Both. We cannot disregard one side because you like some authors more than others. By choosing to describe the events by selecting one side then this is biased. I am saying that both must be included. Now could you please elaborate how mine is biased? Besides there is a rule in WP for that. Have read it? Are you aware that you are violating it?
• One the contrary in my last post I did not say that you are stupid but myself. I said before if you remember that I am an ignorant "bag full of water" I admit that I am ignorant, I cannot know what happened and I never will, but I can try to read and objectively as I can write what other scholars say on the issue in WP. And the people who wrote say different things. So what do you do in WP? You do not pick what you like but rather offer their most valid theories at academic level as objectively and neutral as possible. Here we have two stories!
• Your edits are turning the article into pro-royalist whether you realise it or not. It makes me sad. A.Cython (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then sorry for the misunderstanding, I am taking back what I told, but if you will read again your message you will find that the expression has problem. I never took a position about the sources you are mentioning and I don't know why you said so. It's a little boring to get me saying the same and the same again end again about Markezinis. What I told you many times before is that is a f***ing Velizelist about the given period, it's very clear in his text almost admit it and say why he is thinking that Constantine was wrong. But is giving a good picture about what happened. If you really have him read you must noticed that. Do you know someone else to have more detailed narration than him about? Which one from the above sources you are giving? Most of them are giving some lines or almost nothing. I cannot understand what you really want us to do. Also my edits do not rely entirely on him for the narration, you will find also Kitromilides, Clogg, and especially Abbot, who is an eye witnessed and especially Englishman (thus NPOV) author and has a very detailed narration of what really happened (take a look by yourself [6]). The main reservation that I have is about Selligman as you can understand by yourself, but I will say why, to be clear:

• Is the only source known to me that gives the number of the Greek army, although much more detailed works had published from then, and some of them from very serious authors. No one are giving a figure and no one want to use Sellingman's figure as ref. although is the most old (1920) book and thus was available to them.
• That book tells nothing about the actual events, indicating that the author is feeling that has not enough information about them or he has info, but prefers for unknown reasons to say nothing.
• The number of the Allied forces he gives -2,000- is wrong (less than the actual number, as all other sources gives a higher figure from that), farther indicating his poor information about the incident or a possible effort to lower it.
• The figures themselves (2,000 -20,000) are too rounded to be true, giving the impression that are used more as to give a rate between the Greek and the Allied troops than real figures.
• Although the book is written during the National Schism the author dedicates his book to “His kind permission to his excellency Mr E. Venizelos as a small tribute of the author's respect and admiration”. Farther indicating openly a pro-Venizelist thus pro-Allied bias.

For these reasons I believe that the book is not comply even to the least with the necessary standards in being used as source, especially for the Noemvriana incidents period, for which in either case is giving no information except the troops numbers and this as a comment about the content of a letter.

Now about the article: My intention is not to turn the article pro-royalist or pro-venizelist because I am not pro-something and I don't think in black-and-white terms. Is to contribute in the effort to give the real picture of the era. To me that's my only priority. All the other are second to that. --Factuarius (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

About the violation of the WPrule: The directive "locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made." I believe covers enough the Cloggs statement, if that's the issue. That's why although I always respect the Constantine's edits, when he reworded the paragraph removing who had said so, I reput it back. --Factuarius (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You break the rule by systematically choosing sources that fit the description you like of the events by ignoring other facts, and by removing sourced material you do not like:

• Present the Allies that it their fault entirely. I have found even more sources clearly stating that the king had indeed proposed to the Allies for taking the war material. for example "Greece and the Great Powers", George Leon, p. 422. An the fact that the king repeatedly told the French Admiral that will have nothing to fear.
• Chester, Sleigman, Kitromilidies, Leon, Ion just to names some examples say that Greek irregular forces attacked the Allied troops. You clearly ignoring these sources, you removed them and throwing the fault to Venizelists.
• Ignore the fact the conservative newspapers described the events (including the massacres) on 1 and 2 December as the most "glorious", "sacred", days of the entirely Greek history like Nea Hemera or that Greek "Justice" strike on the "atrocious conspiracy" and the "arch-conspirator of Salonika". In fact you present that the Greek mob was simply angered towards to Allies... so why they murdering Venizelists and not Allies? The Allies before the events were not entirely happy with Venizelos. But you indirectly support the royalist arguments that the Allies were doing what Venizelos told them to do and it was a plan/conspiracy to throw the king out.
• You ignore the fact the French press was outrageous by the events on 1 December and they were proposing the complete removal of the king. Do not forget that Britain, France and Russia were the protecting power of Greece thus they did the right up to certain degree to intervene! Russia disagreed with the French and Britain suggested the blockade.
• Ignore the fact the royalist government surrendered fort Ruple in Easter Macedonia to Bulgarians, and to surprise of the Allies that included 8000 men + their war material! (Not to mention that the Greek government refused the use of railway to Serbians even though they were allies.) That is why the Allies were pissed off with the King... and in order to gain their support before Venizelos gain too much influence on them he suggested the compensation of war material!
• You ignore that the reason of the French taking over the Greek navy was to make sure that the army of Sarrail on the north will not be in danger. They greatly feared a back-stabbing.
• You ignore the fact that it was king's military advisors such as Metaxas that persuaded the King not to give the war material. In fact Gounaris and Skouloudis refused the submission of war material even in the case of war!
• You describe the size of the Allied force 3000 but ignore the number of Greek forces which was over 20000, which have gathered from surrounded regions the previous days, even when sources are presented. Not to mention that there is sourced material with Prince George saying to troops the previous night of December 1 not leaving a single French alive. And that is why the Allies did not wanted him on the throne, he took part in the events against them.
• When the French camped in Zappion there was a truce between the Greeks and the French but the Greek artillery started firing on them again and in reply the admiral order to bombard non-civilian targets of the city and even though 60-70 shells fired only one old lady died in Pagrati. Totally outnumbered and being bombarded the Admiral accepted a compromise of taking only six batteries rather than 10 batteries. So the allies did take part of the war material. So even though they were surrounded and outnumbered, did managed to partially complete the mission and the next day escorted by Greek cavalry they went to their ships. This is hardly the image you want to present. You take the description of Clogg out of context.
• You say that the admiral removed from command but somehow forget to mention that he got a metal of honour a few weeks later.
• These are just a few facts from sourced material that you systematically and conveniently ignoring. Because if the Rolling Stone magazine in another issue saying that the greatest bad ever was ABBA then you have a conflict. Then you must describe what sources describe which band being the best band ever. By ignoring all other views by presenting only one you simply write in POV way. Your actions are obvious even to those who are ignorant.A.Cython (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

part 2

• I presented nothing, I am only giving the facts. Every single source I have, agrees that the operation was unleashed exactly because of the Greek refusal to surrender any more war material (after the ships) to the Allies.
• There are authors saying that the fighting started from the Allies and other that started from the Greeks. Most of the authors take no position saying that it is difficult to find out who started first. But the current text in the article says “..that led to an armed confrontation with Greek forces, stationed in the city”, what else do you want?
• Yes, I ignore the French press being outrageous. I am apologizing for that. About the Great Powers being “protectors”: nice protection.
• Yes, I also ignore what the royalist newspapers told. At war times the newspapers never bother to say truths because that's not their job and because “the first victim of any war is truth”. What you really want us to do, to start writing what the royalist newspapers of the era tell about venizelists and what venizelist or french newspapers tell about the royalists in the middle of a propaganda war? Have you seen in your life any newspaper of that era? Do it.
• Do you really believe that? (that "the reason of the French took over the Greek navy was that they greatly feared a back-stabbing")? Are you really so much Allied-POV to believe they feared that the Greek fleet would attack them? Well, you are wrong. The French took the fleet officially “to balance the material the Central Powers took from the surrendering of the Greek forces in Kavala.
• About 2,000-20,000, re-read my previous message
• They had asked for 18 field batteries, 16 mountain batteries, 40,000 rifles ,140 machine guns and 50 lorries. In your Allied-apologizing effort, you became maybe the only person in the world believing that “they (partially) complete their mission”. They tried to take Athens and they forced into “an ignominious retreat” under the Greek army protection to their ships, taking 6 batteries as an ignominious gift.
• About the king's advisors & their advices: So what? What do you want me to do about?
• I say that the admiral removed from his command and from any other command (immediately after the operation, and took no command for the rest of his life) because that is what every source says, find source to disagree. He was sucked. The medal you are mentioning was taken from England, later, “for his general contribution to the war effort etc.”, read more about.
• When Clogg will write a new book changing his opinion about their retreat, of course I will agree to remove his ref. together with the expression. But I believe that the Oxford University Press is cooperating with very serious authors who do not change their minds every second month unlike what the Rolling stone magazine may be doing.
• I am not POV because I don't identify myself with things that happened a century before as you are doing. You are who going to the extreme in your Allied-apologizing effort to reason a by definition act of “a blatant interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation by the Great Powers” of the period. --Factuarius (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you both present a POV version of the story and you don't try to combine your stories, in order to give a more objective presentation of events. The previous version was clearly pro-Venizelist. Unfortunately, Factuarius edits instead of leading to a NPOV version created a pro-royalist monster! For instance, why did User:Factuarius completely erased the version of events, according to which the royalist mob attacked and tortured the Venizelists? I do not say that this is the truth, but this is what quite a few sources argue. Watching Factuarius' sources, I realize that he only cites Abbot, while A.Cython cites a variety of historians and sources. This should make Factuarius a bit more careful. I agree that previously that section was extremely pro-Venizelist, but with his/her edits he did nothing to improve the situation according to Wiki-policies. He/she only tried to impose a pro-royalist version. And this is terribly wrong. With my edits, I tried to combine the two version. The result is not satisfactory in terms of proper prose and encyclopedic structure, but I hope it is less POV, which could be at least a start for further improvements.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also check what Karolidis (a royalist but good historian who lived all this historical period, and admired Venizelos) says about the Noemvriana and the role of Venizelists.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To my sources it was just a barbarous interference by the Great Powers and little had really to do with royalists or venizelists. They only used the political background to justify or cover their actions. They would possibly have done the same even if no schism had occured, even if Venizelos was at the part of Constantine, this is my opinion but that is not interesting WP. Being pro-venizelist does not mean that you have to apologize for the Allies' action the same way being pro-royalist you don't have to accuse Venizelos for Allies' acts. Now because of the era's politics some sources are trying to say as less as possible or nothing about what happened for their reasons and others do not feel so and tell more about. About what kind of people were in the Allied payroll in Athens during the period before the events and what was their activities the most revealed witness is Compton Mackenzie who is telling the story in his "First Athenean Memories" which is by itself a shocking book. Mackenzie was leading Allied intelligence officer in the English Embassy in Athens during that period. He was prosecuted for his book back in England and his book was forbbiden in revealing state secrets immediately after printing in '30s. Everyone must read it before making his mind about the events. It is still in print. Since the previous (before my edits) section was extremely pro-Venizelist why did not you do anything to change it? As for my edits being pro-royalist, that's impossible since I am not pro-royalist and generally I am not pro to anyone. That's the reason of the dispute here as anyone can understand. For my views you can also take a look in the relative discussion in my talk page (in Greek). Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not agree with your edit about Abbot's “ruffians”. Abbot doesn't say that these persons were pro-venizelist as it is now in the article. As C. Mackenzie describes, during that period the Allied services made extensive use of persons of no ideological orientation (to say the less) for making actions of violence as putting bombs etc. These persons had essentially nothing to do with politics in general and were on pay in doing that. Thus the Abbot's expression. By changing that with the word “pro-venizelists” the reader understands that venizelists were payed from the Allies to terrorize Athens something which is not accurate and sounds rather bad for the pro-venizelist people. They were people from the bottom of the society and they would had done the same for anyone who would pay them, as most of them already had a criminal record, totally unrelated with politics.--Factuarius (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The current version constitutes an improvement. What is still obscure to me is whether it is generally accepted or not that the Allies were supported by "secretely armed Venizelists". On one side, you say it is unfair to say that the ruffians were pro-Venizelists; on the other side, you present as a fact that "secretely armed Venizelists" worked (as "ruffians" obviously!) for the Allies! Decide please! Were they (μίσθαρνα?) όργανα of the Allies or not?! Because a secretely armed Greek working against his government attacked by foreign powers is a traitor! So, were they or not?! And do all the sources agree that they were? I am not sure about that (I admit I have not yet checked Karolidis), and until I am I'll tag this assertion of yours as disputed.

Greeks have the tendency to search enemies everywhere. Until some of us. I hope that Factuarius does not belong to this category. Because, reading him/her, I get the impression that he is continually discovering "defenders" of the "enemies of Greece". I hope this is not the case, but, if it is, I would advise him/her to rethink his/her approach, because it will not help him/her to see things in a less narrow-minded way. For instance, he/she accuses me that I did not do anything to change the previous pro-Venizelist text. He obviously was in such a hurry to revert that he paid no attention to my edits, and he did not notice that I made serious changes to certain sentences which were POV anti-royalist. He/she also says that he is pro to anyone. Well, I am an anti-Venizelist and right wing in real life (but not really pro-royalist), but I really felt that the text about "Noemvriana" two days ago was so one-sided and POV that constituted an offense for historical truth. I am happy it is somewhat better now.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am he. Pro-venizelists were pro-venizelists and the ruffians were ruffians. I have no other way to explain it to you. I've told you why here, in the editing log and in your talk page. Locate a copy of Compton Mackenzie's book and read it. It's worth every euro and every hour you will spend. I indeed don't paid the necessary attention in finding your previous edits and I am apologizing about, I should. But I just wondered how it was possible to escape your attention for such a long time the fact that "the chapter was extremely pro-Venizelist". Nothing more. As for how the text was two days before, what I felt, was that offence for historical truth was the state of the article your anti-Venizelism and Cithon's pro-venizelism had created. But I may be wrong. The impression you have about me is sound and accurate. I am a typical Greek on this also. The only minor difference is my conviction that the most effective enemies of Greece were always the Greeks. I will try to be less narrow-minded in the future. --Factuarius (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We agree on what you assert in your second sentence from the end. I cannot say the same about the rest of your comment. I'll search Mackenzie's book. From my part, suggest you to locate a copy of Karolidis' Συμπλήρωμα στην Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους του Κ. Παπαρρηγόπουλου and read what the guy says about Venizelos (if you have not already done it). It is old but always fresh and to the point IMO.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you believe that has something to do with Noemvriana, I will. Thanks for the ref. --Factuarius (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It definitely has to do. Karolidis, a royalist and politically an opponent of Venizelos, stated in page 248–249 (volume Ζ) that the Venizelisτs had no participation in the events helping the Allies. He also stresses that during the raids of the royalists in their homes no arms were found (except from certain knifes in very few houses, where their discovering there was no surprise), and that the imprisonment of certain prominent Venizelists (such as Emmanouel Benakis) constituted a disgrace. And these are the words of an ideological opponent of Venizelos, and of a contemporary historian who was close to the events. I don't have time now but tomorrow I'll include this info to the article, which currently falsely presents the traitorous activities of the Venizelists as an indisputable fact.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

About E. Benakis, S.Markezinis says the same and seems both must be right. But Markezinis (although clearly pro-venizelist in his opinion despite his pro-royalist political ideology) is giving a detailed narration about the armed confrontation through the “Πολιτική επιθεώρηση”, a “serious” magazine of the era (although his criticism for the characterizations and the spirit of the article), saying (the magazine) that from the first time the battle had broken between the Greek and the Allied troops, more than 50 houses and hotels were used by armed venizelists in attacking the fighting Greek units etc. Then there is Abbot's eye-witnessed testimony who was an English subject thus NPOV, and furthermore his history seems to have the acceptance of the Admiral Kerr a known British Admiral (see the book's preface). But what the one or the other political or historical analysts says is relative when the very report of the French Admiral is accepting clearly that during the fight his units' efforts were assisted from pro-venizelist armed forces (in fact he is saying the opposite that his units assisted the armed venizelists but I don't want to believe it). I am ready to accept that the Admiral exaggerated the venizelist participation but it would be impossible to him to say an absolute lie because France had an embassy in Athens and its personnel had a very detailed picture of what really happened through their services, being involved in the events and the Admiral knew it. To say that the venizelists' armed participation never happened and is a fairytale of anti-venizelists like Abbot De Fournet or Markezinis so we must omit their narrations, is a madness and I will never participate in such a counterfeiting of the history, for any reason. --Factuarius (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

“currently falsely presents the traitorous activities of the Venizelists as an indisputable fact” ? Do you have the impression that you are speaking to a newbie? You filled the paragraph with “accordings” and “assertings” about what De Fourneτ, Markezinis and Abbot said and you are telling that the current text presents venizelists' activities as an indisputable fact? As you have transformed it the text itself disputing it's sources. Or more accurate every source which is not enough pro-venizelist to totally hide what happened. Ευτυχώς που είσαι αντι-βενιζελικός, φαντάσου να μην ήσουν. --Factuarius (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that your vision is particularly selective. You saw the "accordings" and the "assertions" for the anti-venizelist parts but not for the pro-venizelist ones. Μπορεί να είμαι αντι-βενιζελικός, αλλά μονόπλευρες λαλακίες δεν ανέχομαι να διαβάζω.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou there are no "accordings" and "assertions" for the pro-venizelists currently in the paragraph, only for the non-pro-venizelists. The only one you had put in (Seligman's), I changed it to "describes".. I don't want to continue this vendeta. Tell me what you want to do with the chapter so to come to an end. The Greek editors in WP are toο few to fight its others for nothing when major issues are opening now every day. Η μόνη μαλακία που αισθάνομαι να με δέρνει είναι ότι δεν ανέχομαι να μεταχειρίζονται οι ξένοι τη χώρα μου σαν Μποτσουάνα με οποιαδήποτε δικαιολογία. Και γι'αυτό η αρχική μου πρόταση στο Κίθων ήταν να παραλήπαμε κάθε αναφορά στη δραστηριότητα των Ελλήνων αμφοτέρων των πλευρών κατά τα Νοεμβριανά, γιατί ήξερα αυτά που αυτός έμαθε στη πορεία. Τέλος πάντων επειδή η συγκεκριμένη αντιδικία εμφανώς ξεπέρασε τις προθέσεις όλων μας και επειδή όλοι μας έχουμε σημαντικότερες "συνεισφορές" να παλέψουμε, πες μου τι ακριβώς θέλεις να κάνουμε να λήξει το θέμα εδώ. Συγγνώμη γιά κάθε παρατραβηγμένη κουβέντα μου και περιμένω τις προτάσεις σου. --Factuarius (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Όπως σου είπα, το μόνο που προσωπικά με ενδιαφέρει είναι το κείμενο να μη γέρνει προς τη μια ή την άλλη πλευρά. Αν υπάρχουν ιστορικοί που λένε ότι οι Βενιζελικοί συνεργάστηκαν με τους εισβολείς, τότε πρέπει να αναφερθεί. Αν όμως υπάρχουν και άλλοι, μειοψηφούντες ή μη, που αντικρούουν τη θέση αυτή επίσης πρέπει να αναφερθούν. Η πρόταση σου να μην αναφερθούμε καθόλου στον εσωτερικό μας αλληλοσπαραγμό είναι ενδιαφέρουσα, αλλά υπάρχει το εξής: Όποιο βιβλίο ή πηγή και να διαβάσεις περιέχει αναφορές στους διωγμούς κατά των Βενιζελικών. Όταν όμως έρθει ή ώρα να αναζητήσεις πηγές για την πιθανή συνεργασία των Βενιζελικών με τους ξένους, τότε δεν υφίσταται η ίδια καθολικότητα αναφορών. Δεν ξέρω γιατί. Ίσως επειδή την ιστορία τη γράψαν αργότερα οι Βενιζελικοί όπως τους άρεσε. Ίσως επειδή κάποιοι μετριοπαθείς βασιλικοί, όπως ο Καρολίδης, δεν ήθελαν να μας εκθέσουν στα μάτια των ξένων ή δεν ήξεραν όλη την αλήθεια. Η ουσία είναι ότι μη αναφερόμενοι στους εσωτερικούς μας αλληλοδιωγμούς θα πρέπει να μην αναφερθούμε και σε κάτι που κάθε ιστορικό βιβλίο για το θέμα αναφέρει: τους διωγμούς (απρόκλητους ή μη) κατά των Βενιζελικών από τον εξοργισμένο (δικαιολογημένο ή μη) βασιλικό όχλο. Στην περίπτωση αυτή, όμως, το κείμενο θα μου φαινόταν υπερβολικά ελλιπές.

Οπότε η άποψή μου είναι να τα βγάλουμε όλα τα άπλυτα στη φόρα μας να τελειώνουμε. Άλλωστε, έχουμε ήδη γίνει βούκινο για τα καμώματα και των δύο πλευρών την εποχή εκείνη. Οι Βενιζελικοί είχαν ήδη κάνει κυβέρνηση στη Θεσσαλονική με την προστασία των Αγγλογάλλων. Οι ξένοι είχαν ήδη μπει στα εσωτερικά μας υπό την ανοχή του Βενιζέλου (που ουδέποτε απέβαλε τη νοοτροπία του "επαναστάτη"). Ο βασιλιάς είχε ήδη αγνοήσει δις τη λαϊκή βούληση εξωθώντας το Βενιζέλο εκεί που τον εξώθησε και απορρίπτοντας δελεαστικότατες προτάσεις των Αγγλογάλλων ηλιθιωδώς (π.χ. σχετικά με την Κύπρο). Δε γινόμαστε περισσότερο ρεζίλι λέγοντας τα όλα και για τα Νοεμβριανά.

Εμένα αυτό που με ενδιέφερε είναι να εκτίθενται όλες τις απόψεις. Γι'αυτό, πρόσθεσα ότι υπάρχει και μια μερίδα ιστορικών που αμφισβητεί τη συμμετοχή των Βενιζελικών στο πλευρό των ξένων. Δε λέω ότι συμφωνώ (μάλλον το αντίθετο!), αλλά έτσι είναι. Όπως, επίσης, είναι αλήθεια ότι ανοήτως οι βασιλικοί κακοποίησαν επιφανείς Βενιζελικούς όπως ο Μπενάκης (για να πράξουν αργότερα τα ίδια και χειρότερα οι Βενιζελικοί, βλέπε περίπτωση Δραγούμη). Δεν προτίθεμαι να κάνω άλλες edits στο σχετικό κεφάλαιο ούτε προτίθεμαι να εμπλακώ σε edit wars (και δεν το έχω κάνει άλλωστε έως τώρα, καμία από τις edits μου δεν ήταν "ωμό" revert). Αν επιφέρεις βελτιώσεις ή αλλαγές στα τελευταία μου edits, θα καταχωρήσω τα σχόλιά μου, θετικά ή αρνητικά, εδώ και όποιος θέλει ας τα λάβει υπόψη του. Το μόνο που θα ήθελα – και ίσως με οδηγήσει μελλοντικά σε περαιτέρω edits – είναι να πάρω στα χέρια μου μια πραγματεία που έχει γράψει πρόσφατα για το θέμα πρόσφατα ένας Έλληνας (Μουζέλης ή κάτι τετοιο, με googling το βρήκα) και που φαίνεται να είναι η μόνη σοβαρή και επίκαιρη μελέτη επί του θέματος, γιατί δυστυχώς όλοι αυτοί που χρησιμοποιούμε ως πηγές στο κείμενο (Μαρκεζίνης, Καρολίδης, Abbot, Seligmat κτλ. κτλ.) είναι αρχαίοι! Και σοβαρό άρθρο με τέτοιες παλαιολιθικές πηγές δε στέκει!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I added Karolidis' prespective as well the assertion that Benakis was ill-treated (not tortured) during his imprisonment. By the way, I never said that we should ignore Markezinis (I see he wrote his history in 1968; during his preparation to undertake the role of Papadopoulos' prime minister?!), De (or Du? Decide!) Fournet or any other author who says that there was a Venizelist participation in the events. This is what Factuarius wants to understand from what I say; and not what I really say. But I am familiar with such obstructing tactics, and I give no importance. What I say is that we also should not ignore those well-established historians (and Karolidis is one of the best Greek historians ever) who say that there was no Venizelist participation. Especially, if these historians are royalists! So, I don't see where the counterfeiting of history is. I just talk about including all views and perspectives whether Factuarius likes them or not. That's all.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I suggest either to remove Stanford map or add that one next to it as well.

Reasons for removing Stanford's map: 1) Completely out of context here - in that article it is used to indicate the ethic composition of the Balkans but the map is fully wrong and there is not a single piece of evidence that it is reliable in that aspect. The census of Eastern Rumelia which appears on that map with overwhelming Greek majority shows completely different figures (see Eastern Rumelia). 2) It is completely different from the Ottoman census of 1908 (I am not sure for the year but it can be seen in Erickson's book Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans)

Based on that, this map has no place here. --Gligan (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this map. Nevertheless, i must admit that the same argumentation can be applied to the new map. You see the problem is that it is very difficult for us to judge objectively something in the past since we have only these sources, which are in conflict. Things become more difficult when we are not experts. Anyhow, Stanford's map in my opinion seems more suitable in this article because it focuses on other Greek territories such as in Aegean sea something that it is omitted in the map you suggest. Anyhow, we should keep both maps for now and sort it out once we have more sources.A.Cython (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can post that map instead which shows the Aegeans islands and gives more realistic picture of the ethnic composition according to the censuses. I will now put the second map that I suggested because it is really better in this case indeed.

The point of Athenean doesn't make sense to me, since in the description of Stanford's map it is only written ethic composition, without any mention that the map is proven to be wrong and without a mention of the Megali Idea. But in any case since "ethnic composition" is mentioned, we should have both maps in order the reader to get full impression how the ethic composition looked like in fact. After all, the Megali Idea failed and the borders of Greece became more like those of the second map that those of the first one in terms of ethic Greeks distribution. --Gligan (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What doesn't make is your insertion of yet more ethnographic maps. Ethnography is utterly irrelevant here. The only purpose of including Stanford's map is to illustrate the concept of Megali Idea. This [7] map is included in the article for obvious reasons: It was Venizelos' proposal at the Paris Peace Conference. Now compare that to Stanford's map. Do you see the similarity? What's going on here is that Gligan, for obvious reasons, really really hates Stanford's map, and always seeks to "balance" it. Unfortunately, in this article, that is not the point. Athenean (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While Venizelos might have argued at the Paris peace conference using this map, there are no sources to support this. In this case, another map is needed to indicate that there were other views as well.

Kostja (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore, in Paris Venizelos did not receive any territory from Bulgaria. Not even Western Thrace. That would mean that his claims were groundless so we definitely need the second map as a reference what Greece received because its actual territorial gains were far more linked with the map I suggested that with the first one on which it maintained its ridiculous claims. --Gligan (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While I do not understand the whole passionate discussion with ethnographic maps and counter-maps, I'd like to point out a few things, for the sake of accuracy: a) this is the map submitted by Venizelos in 1919 at Paris b) this is what an American newspaper thought he claimed. The former map is worthy of inclusion for that reason and because it is (reasonably) accurate. IMO, the Stanford map is not strictly relevant except in so far as it portrays the more extreme limits of the "Megali Idea", which may have influenced Venizelos in his youth (the map does date to 1877 after all). The latter map is actually hopelessly wrong and I am surprised that no one ever asked for its removal. Venizelos never claimed the whole of E. Rumelia, nor Berat, and the claims shown in Anatolia (the entire coastline) are simply ridiculous. The actual claims were: as regards Bulgaria, Thrace up to the Arda river, in Anatolia the vilayet of Aydin with the westernmost part of the vilayet of Bursa, and in Albania, obviously, N. Epirus. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving over-detailed material

President Woodrow Wilson acknowledged his ignorance of other nations and cultures. Upon arriving Paris he would say, “In Paris were gathered the representatives of nearly thirty nations from all over the civilized globe, and even from some parts of the globe which in our ignorance of them we have not been in the habit of regarding as civilized, and out of that great body were chosen the representatives of fourteen nations, representing all parts of the great stretches of the peoples of the world which the conference as a whole represented.”

As he entered the room and seeing Venizelos for the first time, in amazement, he said, “And there he sat the Prime Minister of Greece-the ancient Greek people-lending his singular intelligence, his singularly high-minded and comprehensive counsel, to the general result.” While in Paris, Mrs. Edith Bolling Wilson, the First Lady, had the privilege to meet M. Venizelos at their hotel room. Upon seeing him in the hallway waiting to speak to President Wilson, she noted in her diary, “Arriving home very late we found M. Venizelos, the Premier of Greece and head of the Greek delegation, waiting. The two guards who always attended him were among the most picturesque of the many figures, which made the Paris streets so colorful. Their uniforms were an exquisite clear blue, like the sky, and heavily embroidered in silver. The caps, which were small and round and set far back on their heads, had long black horsehair tails depending from the, and their shoes were turned up at the toes with big rosettes of black bear skin on them. They carried silver swords, and were round and lithe, with find dark eyes and dark hair.” Eleftherios Venizelos made an impression upon Robert Lansing, the United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson. He wrote, “No man who attended the Peace Conference aroused more general interest because of the part that he had played in the war or won more friends because of his personality than did Eleftherios Venizelos, the Greek Premier and the actual rules of the Greek Nation. I found that nearly every one was anxious to meet this leader whose personal influence had been persistently exerted until it had turned the scales in Greece against the Germans and in favor of the allies.

Lansing felt that he had the qualities of a patriot and a revolutionary. “He had shown boldness in urging his demands and an inflexible spirit in the face of disappointments which made him preeminent as a patriot and as a revolutionist. Revolution with him was a creed as well as a profession. All his energies and talents had been devoted to winning the political freedom to his countrymen and the unification of the Greek people.” Lansing felt that these territorial ambitions were out of character for Venizelos. With his understanding of nationalism and the previous Balkan Wars over nationalistic ambitions, why would Venizelos demand areas of different ethnic groups that would only spawn new wars in the future? “I found it hard to believe that a man of his experience in public affairs, and especially one who had been an active participant in the Balkan quarrels where nationality has always played a most conspicuous part, could be convinced in his own mind that it would make for the future peace and prosperity of Greece to expand her boundaries to so great an extent, since it was sure to arouse the bitter enmity of the Bulgars and Turks and invite them to war against their conquerors at the first favorable opportunity, while the defensive strength of Greece would be materially weakened, unless it became a naval power, which appeared to be substantially impossible. It seemed to be casting fresh fuel into the Balkan furnace where the fires of war are always smoldering beneath the sashes of past conflicts.”

I just moved this part from the treaty of Serves. I think this is over-detailed to the point it becomes irrelevant. Although I admit they are interesting I am sure we can say the same things with any loss with a few lines rather than several paragraphs. A.Cython (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppression of the Left

I am not an expert on Venizelos, but I feel there are some aspects which have been glossed over/ignored. For example, I am pretty sure he founded the first island prison camps for communists and trade unionists.

Also, I understand he employed Pavlos Gyparis - 'nuff said.

Overall, my understanding is that Venizleos became increasingly (far)right-wing as he got older. Bougatsa42 (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please share any (academic/reliable) references that you may have.A.Cython (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fictional "facts"

Venizelos was in reality a staunch monarchist - his row with the king aside. Also, King Constantine planned, fought and won those battles and new lands, not Venizelos. However, Venizelos did wisely insist on attacking the Turks at Thessaloniki against the will of Constantine (who wanted to attack further north). --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not follow your argument. Along the same line it was the Greek soldiers that fought the battles not Constantine. Constantine was the person (while his father was king) that was giving orders to those below him but was not for most of the part (at least based on my memory from the sources was so far in the current article) formulating foreign policy and war campaigns. In other worlds he was mostly a passive actor and when he was active (after the death of his father) he was mostly on the wrong side of history. If you have reliable sources please share them.A.Cython (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Venizelos was Cretan.

I wrote the reason why removed that part of the origin of Venizelos. Make research if you want, but you don't have to make research for any monkey's propaganda.

It's a lie, he refers Mistra and laconic origin! and in brackets (Spatra)... that shows what kind of people wrote this, as Mistra has nothing to do with Sparta.

Sparta was there 2.5 thousands years ago,none knew where was Sparta some decades ago and none knows what Mistra means! it's the foreign name of nowdays Sparta... :D I'm saying this for understanding who they are.

The whole thing is a lie spreaded because Venizelos is important and his origin must be in the fog... must be not Cretan. An other theory wants Venizelos to be jew... They do such things with anything looks important. If you taking articles seriously and the whole Wikipedia you should remove propaganda.

thank you very much Marouloharakas (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course he was Cretan. And has a mountain named after him on Crete, too. What’s the issue? 77.69.34.203 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)