Talk:Greece/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Inclusion of the League of Corinth in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the League of Corinth foundation date (338 BC) be included in the country infobox for Greece under the heading "Union of City States as Hellenic League"? --Michail (blah) 18:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Cases for/against

• The Case Against

The primary function of the infobox is to provide information about the current state which we call Greece. It contains information relevant to the state: official name, capital city, form of government, GDP, and important dates related to the history of the state. The first state which we call Greece, and which is the subject of this page, was created in 1830, in the aftermath of the Greek War of Independence. Other dates are no doubt important for the history of Greece, including the creation of the League of Corinth (Hellenic League), but this should not be included in the infobox. The main issues with the wording as it stands now, Union of City States as Hellenic League - 383 BC, are as follows:

1. That the wording implies that, in 383 BC, all Greek city-states were united under a common banner into a single entity called the Hellenic League - this is untrue. The Kingdoms of Thessaly, Macedon, and Molossia were not part of the league, nor was Sparta or the city-states of Crete. The League of Corinth was important in its achievement of a federation of states referring to themselves as the Hellenes or the Greeks, but at best it united some of the city-states.
2. There is no legal continuum between the state which we know as the Hellenic League and the state of Greece. Where Wikipedia articles list ancient kingdoms as predecessors to current states, there is a strong connection and legitimate continuation of authority between the states involved, as for example China and Japan. In those articles, the form of the country we see today has by and large existed in more or less the same form since the date stated. However, this is not the case here. The League of Corinth reference belongs in the history section as a (very important) historical development, because it did not aid in the formation of the state of Greece. Formation in the infobox refers to the formation of the state which is the subject of the article, in this case Greece.
3. There is precedent in Wikipedia where states with ancient histories do not include ancient versions of the state in their infobox. Examples include Italy, which does not include the Roman Empire but starts with Odoacer becoming King of Italy in 476 AD, Israel, which makes no mention of the Kingdom of Israel (1050 BC), and Turkey, which makes no mention of the founding of the Ottoman dynasty in 1299. Some countries with a rich history, like Germany, don't even have a formation field in their infobox. No one is arguing that the Roman Empire/Kingdom of Israel/Ottomans are not hugely important historical states for Italy, Israel, and Turkey respectively, but these dates have no place in an infobox which is dedicated to the states we know today. Instead, these dates are properly documented in the history section.

--Michail (blah) 22:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In response to User:SilentResident's additions:

1. You say that it's not a necessity for all constituent parts to be part of the union in order for the date to be a valid predecessor to the modern state, but that is not supported by what is actually displayed in the infoboxes. In the one you brought up, Egypt, it is the date of the union of upper and lower Egypt into a single state encompassing all of Egypt. In the case of China it is the date of the union of all the warring states into a single state encompassing all of China, and in the case of Japan it is the date of the union of all the states into a single state encompassing all of Japan.
2. Why are you bringing up Constitutions? I never referred to Constitutions, I referred to legitimate authority. The reason why the China or Japan articles (and, to an extent Egypt since you brought it up) list their ancient founding date is because there is a linear progression of succession of legitimate authority from that date to the present day. This is simply not the case here, where we are talking about a league that existed for 15 years, followed by a gap of 2,200 years, and then the creation of Greece.
3. Yes, it's true that Egypt includes 3,1050 BC. But you do not need to dive into the semantics of "ancient". Obviously in my argument "ancient history" in the case of Italy refers to ancient Rome, and its absence from the infobox. The gravitas that goes with Egypt and its ancient kingdom does not even compare to the Hellenic League, and it feeds into the argument above vis-a-vis continuum. There simply is not an argument for historical continuity between the League of Corinth and modern Greece. The precedent to follow here is Italy or Israel.

--Michail (blah) 13:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources cited in the threaded discussion in support of the case against can be found here, here, and here. --Michail (blah) 12:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Case For

When one clicks on "Formation", in the infobox, gets redirected to the article History of Greece which starts thus:

The history of Greece encompasses the history of the territory of the modern nation state of Greece as well as that of the Greek people and the areas they inhabited and ruled historically. The scope of Greek habitation and rule has varied throughout the ages and as a result the history of Greece is similarly elastic in what it includes.

If "Formation", in the infobox of Greece, starts with such a preamble, then the beginnings of Greece, with the History of Greece as our guide, do not start in 1830, but when the historical Greeks formed a union to represent them as a whole. This Corinthian League union, although not encompassing all Greek states, was the first time the Greeks coalesced into a larger state. Thus, it was one of the preceding formative states of Greece. If anyone gets annoyed by the fact that not all Greek states were included, a note to that effect can be added to explain this fact. We should also bear in mind that when unions are first formed they are never complete. Even at the embryonic stage of the Corinthian League, Greece became a coalition larger than the individual city states. I would also add a similar union, the Hellenic League of 481 B.C., under the leadership of Sparta which was formed for similar reasons and is also described by RS as the first union of Greek States. Arguments about other countries fall in OSE territory as far as I am concerned. Dr. K. 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Addendum by Silent Resident

The concept of the Greek state does not compose not the modern state with its modern borders, but also the past formations of it such as Greek leagues and unions. an example of this can be the two other Mediterranean countries with ancient history and continuous presence in the region, which are Italy and Egypt, whose the infobox includes various formation dates of Italian leagues and Egyptian unions, yet whose territories were far different than today's modern states of Italy and Egypt. The argument that the past Greek leagues or unions shall not be present in the infobox about Greece, is purely based on self-invented criteria and not on historical facts about Greece existing in one form or another in the past.

The primary points of the "Against" campaign are having rather faulty arguments which are analyzed below:

1. That the wording implies that, in 383 BC, all Greek city-states were united under a common banner into a single entity called the Hellenic League - this is untrue. This is not even the case here. Obviously the Greek unions and leagues didn't encompass all of the Greek political entities of that time, just like how the Italian leagues didn't encompass every one of the Italian entities or even all of Italy's modern-day territories. The case is that the date of formation of the greek leagues and unions of the past mark the establishment of the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece, which in chronological order, is preceding the modern-day state and is pivotal part of the nation's history, marking the first unified statehood by modern terms.
2. There is no legal continuum between the state which we know as the Hellenic League and the state of Greece. This is true, but the formation section is not about constitutions for it to be used strictly in cases where there is only legal continuum. There are limited cases of ancient statehoods whose the formation wasn't marked by the creation of Constitutions, yet their formation notes past forms of the nation's statehood. Formation dates are not meant to be an indicator of legal continuum between modern entity and past entities this nation has formed. The formation of statehood is different than the constitution and legality and the one should not be confused with the other. Greece existed as a league in the past, while today exists as an ethnic state. The only difference between the present time and the past eras, is that in the past, the concept of ethnic states didn't exist, while today the concept of leagues is outdated and no longer exists. Greece however existed back then, and still exists today.
3. There is precedent in Wikipedia where states with ancient histories do not include ancient versions of the state in their infobox., this argument is not true. If one editor is to look carefully at the dates, they cound notice how the Ancient History covers everything in the 3,000 BC - 500 AD period. The infoboxes of both Italy and Egypt do contain formation dates that fall under the Ancient period. So the argument used here is not true, as there is clearly a precedent in Wikipedia where country infobox contain formation dates from ancient era. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Support/oppose statements

• Against

1. Michail (blah) 22:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
2. There are a number of possible BC dates, but they have no continuity with the present country. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Per DGG. First, I find it unrealistic and rather POV-ish to include a date of 338 BC for the formation of a modern country, as if one [by implication: inevitably] led to the other. The League of Corinth was a Greek league, but it was not "Greece", and definitely not "modern Greece" in any way shape or form. Second, from experience, but also their very purpose, infoboxes should only contain stuff that is concise and self-explanatory; anything that requires analysis (there was this league in 338BC, but then there were also predecessors during the Persian Wars (or even the Trojan War), and it should not be considered a unitary state, or a predecessor of modern Greece, and Greece then is not coterminous with Greece now, and in between a whole bunch of stuff happened and there were many Greek states and then none, etc etc.) should not be there, as it is potentially misleading and leads to drawn-out conflicts and discussions. Constantine ✍ 08:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Cplakidas says it well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. The attachment to the Macedonian instrument of control over the Greek states (as opposed to the prior native Delian League and Peloponnesian League - but I guess I'm getting into a Macedonia is Greece corner I shouldn't get into... At least we aren't discussing Byzantine Empire continuity based on the Greek Orthodox Church) is a tad odd. The Greek state (true also for Turkey, and a number of other nation states in the region) based on a Greek nationality is a distinctly modern nationalist - 19th century - construction. While inspired by the rich Greek history and culture (including prior periods of Greek greatness) - there is no continuity nor any connection beyond inspirational from history 2000+ years ago to the modern state.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
6. AGAINST(Summoned by bot) – per Michail, below: "No one is arguing against the importance of the League, but it has no place in the infobox. The infobox is about the modern state." That about sums up the whole discussion for me. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
7. AGAINST The League of Corinth was a short-lived federation imposed by Philip II and Alexander and in no way the forerunner or ancestor of the modern Greek state. There is no reason to include the 338 date in the infobox. --Macrakis (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
8. Against per others. The opening sentence of the article's lead makes clear that this article is about the modern state - it would be misleading and dishonest to put formation dates (that apply to a different alliance of states occupied by Greek people) which are two millenia before the state's formation. "The League of Corinth reference belongs in the history section as a (very important) historical development, … … Formation in the infobox refers to the formation of the state which is the subject of the article, in this case Greece." FWIW the Egypt inclusion of the joining of Upper and Lower Egypt in the modern state article seems equally 'potty' and misleading. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
9. Against the formulation as it stands now with the league listed under "Formation". Not categorically against including this important historical event in the infobox in some way, but very much against implying in any way that this event was part of the formation of the modern, post-Ottoman Greek state over two millenia later after a revolt that was at least in part motivated by adherence to a religious identity which didn't exist yet in 338 BC. The events of 338 BC of course became a relevant event in the sense that it was an inspiration for later nationalism and an ideological touchstone in later nation(alism) building (as, ironically, Philly boy's refs show, among others), but this alone doesn't justify the current formulation.--Calthinus (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
10. Against: Given the fact that the year 338 is not even mentioned in the article, it is a bit hard to see this as a main event in the "Formation" of the modern Greek state. Interestingly, the infobox uses the term "Hellenic League" instead of the more common "League of Corinth" (which also is used in the article). I take this as an attempt to give the impression of the league as some kind of rudimentary "nation building" when in fact it was a military/political tool to consolidate the power of Macedon. It may have an important date in the history of ancient Greece, but not in the formation history of Modern Greece. --T*U (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• For

1. Dr. K. 01:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. This issue does not only involve the Greece article thus it should not be debated as such as Alexikoua said.AlbusTheWhite (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Dr.K. and SilentResident. Khirurg (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
5. There is a general trend to include past entities without direct connection: see similar infoboxes in Egypt, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic etc.. Issue should be solved asp part of a general discussion instead.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"The concept of Greece is an ancient one" and "no such separation exists" is not the standard for country articles in the infobox. This content is discussed in the article's history sections but we list the date of the modern state's founding in the infobox. This completely indefensible non-encyclopedic content dating the founding of the Greek State to 338 BC was removed [1] in what should have been a completely non-controversial removal, which as now been reverted multiple times by Dr.K.. Seraphim System ^{(talk</spahttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece&diff=443001904&oldid=442901300n>)} 06:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. According to you I reverted multiple times? I reverted exactly as many times as you did. Two. You piggyback on other editors to prolong edit wars and create instability in articles, which you then invoke. Cute. With your edit-warring record, I would be much more careful. As far as the removal, it is non-controversial according to your edit-warring POV. That doesn't count for much. Dr. K. 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's non-controversial because it is standard on even the most controversial country articles like Israel to discuss history in the history section and the date the state was formed in the infobox. We have also followed that on Turkey. I don't see any justification why we should deviate from that standard for this article. It is up to you to explain why you think an exception should be made for this article, however, I think this discussion might be better on the template talk page because these fields should be standard across articles. If there is confusion or dispute about what formation means, it should be explained better in the documentation, not by edit warring and blaming other editors for article instability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling something "non-controversial" although you rapid-fire edit-warred about it, sounds like an oxymoron. Noone edit-wars at breakneck speed for something that is "non-controversial". As far as other countries, well, that's WP:OSE. Also I don't think the template can be regulated to this degree. Dr. K. 06:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it can, that is why templates have documentation. The infoboxes are standard across articles, there usually is not dispute about what the field means (non-controversial). It should be non-controversial. I don't think you are saying the state of Greece was founded in 338 BC, so the discussion about what "country formation" means would have to resolved on the template talk page. I think it is clearly referring to the founding of the state and the events immediately surrounding it - important treaties, wars, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that field of the template (called "Formation", "Establishment", "History" or similar) is often, I would say most often, filled with dates long before the establishment of the current state. Examples found by unsystematic sampling: Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Norway as opposed to Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Strangely enough, Germany does not even have such field. In any case, the decision about inclusion/non-inclusion should be made by consensus in the talk page, not by edit war. And it is definitely not non-controversial. --T*U (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thank you T*U for your well-made points. Dr. K. 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dr K. is pushing pro-Philip of Macedon propaganda, the real founding event is the foundation of the Greek Delphic Amphictiony shortly after the Trojan War by the principal pan-hellenic Greek states; Greek Sparta was not even a member of the so-called Hellenic league! Stop the Argead propaganda!

Well,I am certain that this is fiction or Just a misunderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusTheWhite (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Argead dynasty propaganda? Lol. What a concept. :) Dr. K. 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the Hellenic League has no place on this infobox. Greece was basically the first modern nation-state in Europe, and there is nothing wrong with that. No need to involve the Hellenic League, which didn't include large swathes of Greece proper or the colonies. Also, I have an issue with 25 March being shown as the independence day; the War of Independence started in on 23 February 1821, not 25 March. That's some Church of Greece propaganda from the Otto years. --Michail (blah) 15:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here. The Hellenic League was the first instance of a unified Greek state in history. It may not be the direct antecedent to modern Greece, but it is historically important. Khirurg (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is quite flimsy, it's not like in China where there is a very clear linear progression between the current state and its first unified state. Pile on top of that the fact that Sparta was not included, nor Crete, nor Thessaly, nor Molossia, nor the colonies of Magna Graecia, nor the most powerful Greek state - Macedon. Modern Greece is not the successor state to the League of Corinth, and that should not be in the infobox. --Michail (blah) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not "flimsy". When the first instance of a state is established, it does not have to include all its member states. As far as clear linear progression, that's just instruction creep and ignores the clear historical relevance of the Corinthian League. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Khirurg: Thanks. That's what I meant when I mentioned the concept of Greece as a state. For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece. This article is not only about the modern Greek state. It is also about its history and that includes Ancient Greece. Dr. K. 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the modern state. There is a separate article called History of Greece. It's why under 'Politics' it doesn't explain the 3,500-year evolution of Greek politics from god-kings to Tsipras. Including the League of Corinth in the infobox gives it unnecessary gravitas. It would be good for those who want it there to compile a list of reputable sources which support the viewpoint that the League of Corinth is, in fact, the predecessor of the modern Greek state. --Michail (blah) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this article is not only about the modern Greek state. As I mentioned above, it is also, obviously, about its history. Ignoring the Corinthian league, it is like ignoring its ancient history. Dr. K. 17:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is the country of Greece. This is expressed in the leading sentence: Greece [...] is a country located in Southern Europe. The country was established in 1832. Like I said, please provide us with some academic sources which claim that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the Greek state, because this is the purpose of that part of the infobox. --Michail (blah) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is simplistic to ask historians to phrase Greece's history according to the requirements of Wikipedia's infoboxes, while at the same time ignoring the long history of Greece. Also, the primary topic of this article is inextricably linked to its long history. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And also, how will you remedy the fact that large swathes of 'Greece' were not part of the Hellenic League? "Union of City States as Hellenic League" implies that all Greek city-states were united into a single entity, which is a lie. --Michail (blah) 17:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Before you continue nonsense references to "lies", read what I wrote above: For a nation of such long history, the Corinthian League date is important because it establishes the first instance of a unified entity representing Greece.. It is obvious that the first instance of a unified Greece was not completely inclusive of all its later member states. Think of the EU before you go again down this path. Dr. K. 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've listed this for Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please provide us with some sources for your claim. "Union of City States as Hellenic League" is grossly misleading, some of the most important city-states were not part of the League. --Michail (blah) 18:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a misfiled 3O request, because the active participants in this are four, not two, as required by 3O. Also please do not repeat requests for sources, since I addressed this point above. Dr. K. 18:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not actually provide any sources though. --Michail (blah) 18:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I take it you didn't understand my response. Which is fine. Dr. K. 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your response wasn't that complicated, I understood it. But it didn't contain any sources. Where are you getting this information from, that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the modern Greek state? Which scholars describe the League as the first Greek state, and who links that first Greek state with the modern Greek state? Are we to take your word for it? Where is the scholarly consensus? --Michail (blah) 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I just provided the RS that you requested in the article, calling the Corinthian League "the first unified Greek state in history". Now you can argue about semantics, but no reputable historian disputes the fact that modern Greece is the historical heir of Ancient Greece. Dr. K. 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? Is that why ancient Greece is not included in the history section of the Britannica article on Greece, but is instead a separate article called Ancient Greek civilization? The infobox is about the modern state of Greece, not Greece as a cultural entity. It lists the official name of the state of Greece, Hellenic Republic. It lists its official capital. It lists its currency, its legislature, its political leadership. It is the infobox for the state, and this state has no relevance to the historical state of the League of Corinth. Your source (a single source) states that it was "the first unified Greek state in history" - which is misleading. A "unified Greek state" cannot exist if all states of Greece are not unified. It was an important development in Greek history, but it has no place in the infobox. --Michail (blah) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, I provided a very reliable and reputable source, you call it misleading. Then you invoke Britannica, as some sort of verification that Greece does not have a unified history. You have made your points and it is clear you will not take no for an answer. It is obvious that you are the leading prosecutor of the case of not including the CL in the infobox. I made my points repeatedly and clearly. That's why we have RFCs. So that we don't monopolise this discussion between us. Let's see what other editors have to say. I am not going to take the role of the sole defence. I have no time for that. Dr. K. 19:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the "leading prosecutor", that is ridiculous. So that new contributors to the discussion can get an overview without the need to read all of this, we should make a brief one-sentence introduction of the two cases. Is the following acceptable? Case 1: the League of Corinth was the first unified Greek state, and it should be included in the infobox. / Case 2: the infobox is about the modern Greek state, and the League of Corinth does not belong in an infobox about the modern state of Greece. --Michail (blah) 19:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This excerpt from Britannica also seems potently relevant to this discussion: Although there certainly are significant similarities that demonstrate continuities in some aspects of Greek culture, there are also equally important differences that demonstrate discontinuities in other aspects of Greek culture. Unfortunately, scholarship on this issue has often been overshadowed by nationalist and romantic political agendas of Greeks and non-Greeks alike." --Michail (blah) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Read what I told you above, and, again, avoid sloppy digs about romance and nationalism. It just reflects badly on you, not on your intended target. It is sad that you cannot have a discussion with someone without alluding to ulterior or nepharious motives. You should stop that. It is a direct violation of AGF. You should know better. Dr. K. 19:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it was never an assumption of bad faith. If you think the romantic idea that Grece is somehow a direct descendant of ancient Greece is somehow an attack on you personally, there is nothing I can do about that. --Michail (blah) 19:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You know this, but I will humour you/tell you anyway. When you advance a position that somehow your interlocutor is associated with something as silly as romanticism, or whatever happens to be the dig at the time, then this is an attempt at making your interlocutor look bad. I will leave it up to you to connect the rest of the dots. I know you are capable of it. Dr. K. 19:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write this, now there is a more important reply a little bit further up that needs a response so that new contributors don't have to read the entire thread to figure out the two positions. --Michail (blah) 19:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, thank you for taking the time to read my response and then responding to it. :) I saw your proposal. It is very sensible. But, hopefully, I am not the sole defence. I'll wait and I will only write something if someone does not do it first. Dr. K. 19:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Formation" is not the best infobox field to list the Hellenic League? But it is historically important as the first unified Greek state in history. Maybe a more suitable infobox field can be found? Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the importance of the League, but it has no place in the infobox. The infobox is about the modern state. The League of Corinth mention in the history section is unreferenced. --Michail (blah) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Khirurg: I agree. Dr. K. 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Britannica has become a very low quality source in recent years. Please do not use Britannica as an argument. Khirurg (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I joined the discussion and added the points of the Pro side, which analyze and prove the faulty points of the Against side, to the beginning. It is important to clarify these things so editors are not led by false arguments to conclusions about formation dates. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved the following out of the "case for" and "case against" sections above. There is a reason there's a section here called "threaded discussion"; please use it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You said: You say that it's not a necessity for all constituent parts to be part of the union in order for the date to be a valid predecessor to the modern state, but that is not supported by what is actually displayed in the infoboxes. In the one you brought up, Egypt, it is the date of the union of upper and lower Egypt into a single state encompassing all of Egypt. In the case of China it is the date of the union of all the warring states into a single state encompassing all of China, and in the case of Japan it is the date of the union of all the states into a single state encompassing all of Japan. Nope. None of these aforementioned states have the same borders and territories today as they had back then. If you compare the maps of that era with the modern day borders that were defined by modern treaties, you can clearly notice how they are not the same and large chunks of territories are lost/obtained over time, and thus, resulting to the states we know today.

You said: Why are you bringing up Constitutions? I never referred to Constitutions, I referred to legitimate authority. The reason why the China or Japan articles (and, to an extent Egypt since you brought it up) list their ancient founding date is because there is a linear progression of succession of legitimate authority from that date to the present day. This is simply not the case here, where we are talking about a league that existed for 15 years, followed by a gap of 2,200 years, and then the creation of Greece. To argue that Egypt or the other countries had a continuous progression of succession of legitimacy from that date to the present day, cannot be more wrong than ever. See for example Egypt. Egypt was under Ottoman rule for centuries, and the Ottoman rule does not exactly make Upper and Lower Egypt a direct successor to the modern state of Egypt. See Ottoman Egypt for more info.

You said: Yes, it's true that Egypt includes 3,1050 BC. But you do not need to dive into the semantics of "ancient". Obviously in my argument "ancient history" in the case of Italy refers to ancient Rome, and its absence from the infobox. The gravitas that goes with Egypt and its ancient kingdom does not even compare to the Hellenic League, and it feeds into the argument above vis-a-vis continuum. There simply is not an argument for historical continuity between the League of Corinth and modern Greece. The precedent to follow here is Italy or Israel. but to bring the Roman Empire (which held non-Italian territories and wasn't representing only its Italian subjects) as argument on whether a Greek league (which held most of Greece's territory and had only Greek subjects) shall be in the infobox, is just poor effort to compare an apple with an orange. The Empire of Rome is not on Italy's infobox, as is the case with the Empire of Greeks which for the same reasons explained above, (encompassing non-Greek territories and had non-Greek subjects) is not in Greece's infobox. Now, regarding Egypt, I am sorry but this is merely your opinion, not a fact. The fact here is that the unions or leagues are encompassing a majority of the territory that falls within the present day borders, as are the case of Upper and Lower Egypt and the Italian league. To see that the Upper & Lower Egypt and the Italian League are somehow considered by you to be valid for Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes, yet to deny the same standard for other countries such as Greece and its Greek league, only is bound to cause an issue of POV and double standards in Wikipedia and I am sure we do not want this to happen. We will have to follow the same rationale for all articles in Wikipedia regarding formation dates. This means either 1) to have the Greek league date added on Greece's infobox, or 2) have the Upper and Lower Egypts and Italian leagues removed from Egypt's and Italy's infoboxes respectively. Simple as that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you honestly putting the League of Corinth, which was imposed on its members and which lasted barely 15 years, and ancient Egypt, a kingdom which lasted for 2,000 years, in the same category of legitimacy? Are you essentially saying that the League of Corinth was so instrumental in the development of Greece that it had the same impact as the unification of China and Japan have had on their respective countries, or the Ostrogothic kingdom for the development of the Italian states? That's what it boils down to. If not, it doesn't belong in the infobox. If yes, please explain to me the way in which the League of Corinth has fundamentally shaped the Greece we know and love. --Michail (blah) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Michail: was that you that proposed that addition of the Hellenic League in infobox here: [[2]] Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Michail's argument. To be precise: I believe that including the Leage of Corinth (as Hellenic League to show the connection between the ancient and modern use of the term 'Hellenic') is the best option, I believe it is arguably the first "Greek state". [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You must have a better argument than "you said that thing 7 years ago". People move on, they read books, they evolve intellectually. --Michail (blah) 09:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see any archaeological/academic findings in the last 7 years that made this addition less important. I'm afraid that your 2011 arguments need to be refuted by yourself by providing solid evidence instead of simply saying that ... concensus evolves.Alexikoua (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on here as to what the 'against' side is saying, and it's not that the Hellenic League is not an important development in the history of Greece, but that there is no link between it and the modern Greek state, no succession of uninterrupted legitimate authority that lead from point a (Hellenic League) to point b (modern Greece). I can't give you archaeological evidence that points to this succession because no such succession exists. In the case of Japan or China you can point to a series of different states all of which succeeded one another until the Republic of China/PRC/Modern Japan. Can you say that of Greece? Or is this a case of "well there was this one state in the 320s BC but it dissolved in 15 years and then there wasn't an instance of a state called Greece for 1800 years"? Can you point me to some sources which, in their article on Greece (modern), they list the League of Corinth as a fundamental date in the development of the state we have now? --Michail (blah) 11:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, a couple more things. It is true, as you pointed out, that in 2011 I supported adding this. Two things however. One, the earliest addition of "Union of City States as Hellenic League" that wikiblame found was on 6 June 2018 by user:TakisA1. And two, I'm not going to defend a position I held seven years ago and have since changed my opinion on, just because it was my opinion at the time. --Michail (blah) 13:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

TakisA1 may have been also convinced by your 2011 arguments, after reading this talkpage & your past edit. Another issue is that I find it weird why you support Odoacre in Italy infobox: he ruled only c. 15 years, his entity vanished without any connection with the later Italian state (Ostrogoths too) & not to mention that geographically he ruled also half former-Yugoslavia. The same rationale you use (but for deletion) in the case of the Hellenic League.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest you take that grievance up with Talk:Italy. We're still waiting on those sources for the pivotal significance of the League on the modern Greek state. --Michail (blah) 16:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually the Italy example is one of your recent arguments (in this talkpage). If you can't provide a decent explanation you simply make them weaker.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I used it, and Israel, as an example of why ancient Greece (and other states that existed roughly in the similar timeframe with modern states related to them also existed in the same area) should not be used. If you want to argue that even the King of Italy should be removed from the Italian infobox, by all means start that discussion. --Michail (blah) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't be contributing to the discussion section any more, I've made my points clear. I might reply if there is a new argument, but it's all circling at this point. There's apparently all this evidence of how the League is the predecessor of Greece, and we haven't seen a single source to support this [apart from the single source that is cited in the article, which talks about the ancient league, not its relevance to the Greek state's formation]. Additionally, I have to protest the addition of SilentResident's comments to the 'for' section, which are obvious responses to my points in the for section, while my addendum, responding to his points, was removed. Dr. K calls this a "suppression", I call this inbalance. No one is going to read through a gazillion messages to find my response to the points raised by SilentResident, which are at a prominent location. His points are not "complimentary" as Dr. K. calls them, they are direct responses to my points made in the for section. Dr. K also needs to start assuming some good faith, because apparently I "have no respect". --Michail (blah) 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You edit-war to summarily remove points from the opposition specifically earmarked for the "For section, even though they were well justified in my edit summary. If you think this direct violation of WP:TPO is respectful to the opposition, I wonder about your editing choices. Invoking AGF against me just adds insult to injury. Dr. K. 18:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, just because Italy was repeatedly mentioned as a case for comparison in the discussion above: That article, until very recently, had a long-standing status quo with a "formation" list starting with unification in the 19th century. It was expanded backwards only a few days ago, and I restored it back to sanity just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not categorically against mentioning 338 BCE in the infobox, but absolutely not the way it currently does. While this was certainly an inspiration for the modern Greek nationalist movement within the Ottoman Empire, there was not continuity (although there was population continuity). It was not an event in the formation of the modern Greek state, and should not be under a "formation" section.--Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I have also agreed with a similar statement by Khirurg. Dr. K. 16:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Formation is indeed not ideal. Btw, Calthinus, what do you think about the Principality of Arbanon, Kingdom of Anjou, etc... appearing the "Formation" field of the infobox over at Albania?

@Khirurg: both the Albanian and Greek cases might be best handled by Precursors or something of the sort, imo.q Checking quickly, the same should really apply in Serbia, Bosnia, Hungary and Croatia too. Meanwhile we have some humorous things in the infoboxes of Romania and even more so, Armenia....... --Calthinus (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you guys propose to format that section then? How would the "Precursors" thing work, how would it go from "predecessor" to "1821" to "1830" to "1975"? and can you provide some decent bibliography to support the idea that the league was a legitimate predecessor of the modern Greek state, and not the product of romantic nationalism from the 1830s? I've asked for sources repeatedly and no one has offered any (there is a single one in the article about how the League was the first instance of a state calling itself Greece, but that is the only reference, no discussion about its significance on the concept of a Greek state and how it influenced the creation of modern Greece). None of the founding documents of Greece mention the League or any pre-moder-Greece union, they only mention the nation and its history. Rigas Feraios didn't even envisage Greece as a nation of ethnic Greeks, but rather a union of Balkan nations (including the Greeks). Ypsilantis mentions a great number of historical events and figures in his speech which essentially started the Greek War of Independence, and the League is not one of them. Curious if it was an event of such pivotal importance and the bedrock of Greece's legitimacy as a state, no? --Michail (blah) 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league and Greek romantic nationalism, but there is actual bibliography to support this. An excellent book is Εθνική ταυτότητα και εθνικισμός στη νεότερη Ελλάδα (National identity and nationalism in modern Greece) by the Educational Foundation of the National Bank of Greece (which I won't quote right now because I'm in Greece and the book is in London, I'll quote it when I'm back from my holiday), but a quick search brought this up from the European Institute of Modern Greek Studies which runs along the same lines:

In the period 1840-1880, but also later, the Megali Idea, for territorial, political, cultural, historical completion and unity becomes an core concept of Greek romanticism, but also due to the trife and vision for a Greece territorially and culturally complete, which would include both the city-states of ancient Greece but also the lands of the later Byzantine Empire. Greek romanticism is transferred to the political scene with the wide array of meanings that the Megali Idea entails, as political practice, and as a re-linking to classical antiquity. Further, it burdens modern hellenism with the duty of spreading the ancient Greek ideals [...] The new kingdom, in the minds of politicians and intellectuals, is reborn lawfully, in order to defend the characteristics of its race and the spread of its classical heritage. This idea is adopted by everyone and motivates political and intellectual developments throught the latter half of the 19th century [...] In the context of irredentist policy, [the University of Athens] tries to unite a common set of beliefs and attempts to get recognised a new reading of the historical continuity of hellenism from antiquity "until the modern years".
— Haido Barkoula, The construction of the national identity in 19th century Greece. Irredentism and Diplomacy. The example of Al. P. Ragavis.

--Michail (blah) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Philly boy, I agree having it presented as the "bedrock" of the (modern) state is not what's happening. But in all fairness, in other cases such as Bosnia we do have pre-modern-state events outlined in the infobox, under Establishment history. Well in all fairness, one could make the case that for Bosnia, there is a bit more state continuity as the medieval kingdom became the Ottoman province which in turn, once Sandjak was chopped off again, became the modern country within the Hapsburg state (the irony is that Bosnia is one of the few Balkan states that has this sort of institutional continuity, yet its the one with the modern national cohesiveness problems...). But still, I don't think referencing an important event in the infobox is necessarily saying that is the modern statehood. Croatia has 6th century Slavic migrations there, for one thing. --Calthinus (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Phillyboy. Can you please stop mentioning me in your replies? I'm sure you can rephrase things so that you don't have to mention my name. Again, don't make this personal. Dr. K. 02:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to specific things you said in this thread. It is not personal, you are just taking it personally. Please stop deflecting actual arguments with accusations of personal attacks. --Michail (blah) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my comments and you are using my username gratuitously and unnecessarily. You can make exactly the same argument without your misrepresantations, PAs, and the clumsy use of my name to make some short of silly point. Now you pile on accusing me of "deflection" which is yet another ABF accusation on your part. Way to go Phillyboy. And I am not "deflecting" anything. I am not participating further in this discussion with Calthinus, so I don't need to "deflect" anything. I am not as invested in this discussion as some others here who have to reply to every single point made for the "For" case or its alternatives to try and rebut it. In fact, I would like to avoid discussing anything with you because of your proven record of attacks. I am asking you yet again, to not use my name in your arguments, as gratutitous, clumsy, annoying, and unnecessary. So, I am asking you for the last time: Stop using my name to make your arguments so that I can bring this absurd discussion with you to an end. Dr. K. 18:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but at no point has this been in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your assertion that this constitutes a personal attack on you is ridiculous. --Michail (blah) 18:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In my reply just above, I was not responding to the links you just added, so I will not relitigate these comments. I am just asking you to not add my name in sentences such as Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league.... That's all. Dr. K. 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Next time you quote me, quote the entire thing. Also, Dr. K. has previously dismissed my concern regarding the link between the inclusion of the league and Greek romantic nationalism, but there is actual bibliography to support this.. Quoting you, or referring to the points you have made on this thread, does not constitute a personal attack. You did dismiss my point regarding romantic nationalism. You said in response when you advance a position that somehow your interlocutor is associated with something as silly as romanticism, or whatever happens to be the dig at the time, then this is an attempt at making your interlocutor look bad. Romantic nationalism is a legitimate historiographical concern. You chose to interpret this as an attack on you personally. I suggest you read that page, and in particular what constitutes a personal attack if you think me bringing it up was somehow aimed at you and not at the concept. Not once did I mention your name, or allude to you. I said that the quote was pertinent to the discussion. You on the other hand have consistently tried to make this a personal attack and have said that I make sloppy digs, that me bringing up the legitimate topic of romantic nationalism is an attempt at making [you] look bad, and that I have a proven record of attacks. I fail to see how anything I've said is a personal attack on you. You have consistently advanced the view that not only do I make personal attacks, but that I cannot have a discussion with someone without alluding to ulterior or nepharious motives.You have also consistently used sarcastic language to imply I have bad faith. If I'm talking about something you have said, I will mention your name so people whow who/what to look for. If you do not stop with the defamatory accusations I will seek administrator mediation. --Michail (blah) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to your nonsense. You are doubling down on your irrelevant points, instead of doing the decent thing and acknowledging that your reference to my name in your post was unnecessary. I am not at all perturbed by your threats. You are free to seek intervention from anyone you choose. Just be careful of the effect. Dr. K. 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Michail: There is no reason to take the issue too personally. I suggest to avoid direct confrontation against co-editors and focus on content. For example if you explain why you once supported the opposite point (inclusion) this will add some validity to your claims.Alexikoua (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As I see that the formation part in various countries mentions entities that were not directly connected with the current states: a typical case is Bulgaria though the medieval states were succeeded by half millennium of Ottoman rule, Czech Republic (Bohemian entities & similar case of centuries long Austrian etc. rule), Albania and of course Egypt. This case should be part of a centralised discussion about what should or shouldn't be in a state's infobox. NOT an isolated discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not take anything personally, I'm not the one going on and on about personal attacks. The argument vis-a-vis continuity, and whether this applies in this case, has been asnwered above. Some states have questionable "formation" sections in infoboxes, but that doesn't mean that this article should imitate them. We should be striving to write the best article we can, and anything with as much contention as the topic of 338 BC should probably not be in the infobox. I don't understand your fixation with my position in 2011, and this has been explained above as well. First of all, if you take a closer look at that discussion you will see that it was actually a different user who proposed adding the Hellenic League, not me as you wrongfully indicated. What I did is voice my support for it at the time, and it is an accepted principle in wikipedia that editors' consensus can change. I have, since 2011, expanded my knowledge both on this topic and others, as I am sure have you. Gods help us if you're held hostage to the same opinion we once held at 18 years of age for the rest of our lives. I suggest to avoid direct confrontation against co-editors and focus on content: you're the one that brought it up by name. This is probably also the fifth time I've asked for historiographical somes sources to support the claim that Greece is directly descended from the League. --Michail (blah) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Some further points regarding the dubious direct relationship between the League and modern Greece:

As Tsoukalas also argues (2002) the Hellenism of modern Greece was largely imposed on it by Western Europeans while modern Greece had more to do with the Orient culturally and politically.
— Triandafyllidou, Anna; Gropas, Ruby (2015-11-03). What is Europe?. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 9781137560650.

The Greeks of the time and subsequent decades renovated their nation on the premise that they were, in terms, of language and culture, the descendants of the ancient Greeks and that there has been a continuity of the Greek langage and culture since antiquity in the historical Greek lands; which raised at the time and still raises many eyebrows in the West as well as in the East. [...] Indeed, this founding national myth has been successful in convincing the descendants of the non Greek-speaking groups, no less than Greek-speaking ones of the historical Greek lands, that their claim to cultural descent from the Greeks was not only irrefutable; it has proved a powerful adhesive force, which held the nation together, and has produced substantial cultural achievements in the space of less than two centuries.
— Koliopoulos, John S.; Veremis, Thanos M. (2009-10-27). Modern Greece: A History since 1821. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444314830.

The national entity, defined through the alternative use of the terms 'Hellenism', 'the Greek people' or 'the Greeks' and 'Greece', is considered as given outside the context of history and of geography. The use of the term Hellenism helps the historical narrative to avoid obvious anachronisms and contradictions, while indirectly presenting the Greek nation as everlasting. This a-temporal and anthropomorphic subject is transcending both geography and history, since it is used to define the Greeks from the Minoan times all the way through to the eighteenth century. It thus serves as a basis for the valorization of events, acts and cultures over time.
— Dragonas, Thalia; Birtek, Faruk (2004-08-02). Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey. Routledge. ISBN 9781134277100.

As a result, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Greek national myth settled on a direct line of ancestry linking the contemporary Greek nation-state with the heroes of Greek mythology, classical antiquity, the Hellenistic period, the transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire and the period of oppression under the Ottoman Empire.
— Blaschke, Jochen (2005). Nation-state Building Processes and Cultural Diversity. Edition Parabolis. ISBN 9783884023327.

The one source listed in the article on Greece about the League of Corinth says with [Macedon] uniting the Greek world in the League of Corinth (also known as the Hellenic League or Greek League) under the guidance of Phillip II, who was elected the leader of the first unified Greek state in history. Nowhere does it state that the League of Corinth is the predecessor of the modern Greek state, or that the modern Greek state can trace its roots to that. This assertion is pure Wikipedia:Original Research. I remind everyone again that the subject of the infobox is the country of Greece, not Greek culture. --Michail (blah) 15:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have actually removed this source from the article, as the Boldt book extensively plagiarises this page (see section below) and is therefore an unreliable publication per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. --Michail (blah) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we speak of a Greek nation [in the context of ancient Greece]? Greece, as we all know, was never united until the Roman conquest within a single entity; consequently there can be no history of Greece in the sense that there is a history of Rome. But the concept of a Greek nation trying to realise itself (and failing) has been adopted by many historians as the most fruitful criterion for interpreting the kaleidoscopic relations of the Greek cities. [...] 'Particularism', we read, 'was the hereditary curse of the Greek people.' Athens, Sparta, Macedon, and the third-century Confederations, with their 'republican movement', were the successive incarnations of this spirit of national unity striving to be born. Each in turn proved abortive [...]. But the other suppodedly great moment of Greek unification - the setting up of the League of Corinth by Philip II after Chaeronea - very soon became the centre of polemic. For in proportion as the stock of Philip and Isocrates rose, the reputation of Demosthenes fell, until he began to look like a petty and narrow patriot [...].For the urge towards the autonomy of the polis was a force working against, and not in the direction of, Hellenic unity; and in an acute and pessimistic study Ferrabino demonstrated that this liberty, admitting no restraint, and developing whenever circumstances allowed into domination over others, was the one really potent factor in Greek history. [...] Panhellenism and the crusade against Persia [...] had no more to do with a united Greek nation than had the anti-Macedonian coalition [...]. The conclusion seemed to be that the Greeks had a weak or ineffective national sense [...].
— Walbank, Frank W. (2010-08-26), Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521136808, retrieved 2018-09-08

A further source. --Michail (blah) 12:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

With 10 votes (Michail, DGG, Constantine, Fut.Perf., Icewhiz, Mathglot, Macrakis, Pincrete, Calthinus, T*U) in favor and 5 votes against (Dr.K., AlbusTheWhite, SilentResident, Khirurg, Alexikoua), the new consensus here is that an an event of the very distant past which has no direct relation to the formation of the modern Greek state, shall not be in the infobox about that modern state. I could say, while the issue of whether ancient dates of union/league formations could be in infobox is addressed in the case of Greece, still it has not been addressed in the case of articles of many other mediterranean and balkan countries in the broader region. Alexikoua is correct that we could deal with the issue as whole and not selectively as to avoid double standards, a point which I find myself agreeing with. The question is, given that the RfC was only about Greece and not about every country infobox, how could we deal with similar cases on other topic articles about the Mediterranean region? Could a RFC be opened in every one of them? Or shall we open a discussion on a main talk thread/ discussion board where this can be scrutinized and catholic decissions are taken? The discussion logically, should be about the "Formation" section in infoboxes and the inclusion of dates other than the state's founding dates.

With consensus being clearly in favor of the date's removal, the article should be updated accordingly. @Robert McClenon:, shall we have to wait 30 days before any update is made to the article in accordance with it, or does the solid consensus that has already been formed thus far, suffice already? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 08:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I see two questions. The first is whether to perform a snow (that is, snowball in Hell) closure, or to let it run 30 days. The second is whether to request administrative attention because there are personal attacks. My answer to the first question is that it is hardly a snow closure, and it requires 30 days, but I am not an administrator. I won't answer the second question yet, but I would suggest that all editors consider whether they have been civil, and avoid personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The infobox should be an 'easy to read' summary of basic uncomplicated facts, it is thus misleading and PoV to imply that a modern state was formed many years before it actually came into being. The article is about the state, not about the geographical space nor the history of the Greek-speaking peoples. That premise is true regardless of the state (Israel?). Nobody would object I suspect to giving some 'back-story' to the modern formation. In the case of Greece, the fact that Greek-speaking people had occupied roughly that territory since ancient times and the fact that 'Greek' political entities had existed there in those times were (and are still) powerful motivating forces for the modern state and for modern identity - but not grounds for misrepresenting history by over-simplification. I would support SilentResident's logic being implemented, regardless of the state, so please 'ping' me if any wider debate occurs. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be on a case-by-case basis, because for some states those kinds of dates are more relevant than for others. On Italy it was reverted without dispute and any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Also note that per WP:CCC proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive, even if you propose to change said consensus by changing the guidelines of the infobox. --Michail (blah) 10:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the examples provided, inc Bosnia and Austria, I can see that there is a case for a more flexible approach than I outline immediately above. The primary difficulties in relation to Greece seem to be a) the use of the parameter 'formation', (which is a pretty unequivocal term, meaning when the state came into being) - presenting an ancient date for the formation of a modern state is inherently misleading (other countries refer to 'history of formation' or somesuch, not ideal but much less likely to mislead). b) the second issue is avoiding 'cherrypicking' of key dates which imply continuity of nationhood - thus the Bosnia article records the Ottoman occupation and Aust-Hung rule, whereas what is being suggested on the Greek article implies continuity of statehood between 338 BC and 1821. If one wants to include the key events in Greek history (which might meaningfully include ancient city states as well as the 'Union') - one cannot 'by-pass' the inconvenient ones, in order to serve a particular agenda of implied continuity. I haven't attempted to answer the question as to whether the 'Union' was a seminal event, since for me the key question is not that, but rather presenting info in the infobox in a clear and unambiguous fashion. The significance of the Union seems a secondary question. Pincrete (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It would, of course, have been nice with a general rule covering all countries, but it is not really realistic, since each country's history and pre-history are different. This will need to be decided for each country. --T*U (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete With regards to the double standards, you guys may have noticed that I have been going through various countries' infoboxes and removing the problematic material (Lebanon allegedly being founded in 3200, Armenia in 2400 BC, Moldova, mostly changing "Formation" to "Establishment history" and likewise) -- Iran, Romania, Moldova, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Belarus, Ukraine, Austria, South Korea, and Lebanon. To date, most of my changes have been accepted, except on Moldova and Armenia where I faced resistance. I also left a message on Fut Perf's tp about possibly elaborating a more unified policy for this, but no response.--Calthinus (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Michail: It appears you have misunderstood Greek history: the infobox inclusion (which you agreed in the past) doesn't mean "direct relationship" between the League and modern Greece. There is no direct relationship with Ancient Egypt with modern, Odoacre's kingdom Italy etc, etc as you are suppose to claim in this talkpage (argument #3).Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've not misunderstood anything; I just don't agree. There is a difference. I've made a case for it, using bibliography to support it, and I don't think I warrant being brushed off as merely confused. Can you give us a source that supports your claim that 1. the league was a pivotal moment in Greek national consciousness and 2. modern Greece traces its roots to that specific league? No one from the 'for' side has so far ventured to provide a source (that is, a source that is reliable). --Michail (blah) 20:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The recent edits adding claims that During the Paleologi dynasty (1261–1453) a new era of Greek patriotism emerged accompanied by a turning back to ancient Greece are directly linked to this debate. This needs additional citations, as an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. --Michail (blah) 23:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Already added. However, it appears you have a wrong understanding of some basic historical facts: there is a mountain of evidence that supports Vasiliev (it's quiet weird you find such a widely accepted fact as extraordinary).Alexikoua (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the consensus that was built here, I'd say I'm not the one with "a wrong understanding of some basic facts". It seems to me that the only possible reason why that piece of text was added to the prose is because of the dispute regarding Greece's foundation. That's getting changed so that the infobox starting date is 1821, unless consensus miraculously changes, so now you have added controversial comments to the Medieval section. Your edits removing the 'more citations needed' tag is clear POV pushing, while your constant repetition of derogatory statementss about me lacking an understanding of history are personal attacks. If there is a "mountain of evidence", you should not have any problem providing some further credible sources regarding the rise of "Greek nationalism" in the BE. --Michail (blah) 00:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As per AGF additional inlines have been presented. I assume this fact is not extraordinary now (I fail to see any derogatory statement by the way)Alexikoua (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You could have done that from the beginning instead of needlessly edit-warring to remove the tags and then add the sources. You will notice that I did not even touch your addition about the unified LBA kingdom, which was verifiable since the sources were online. --Michail (blah) 00:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You edit-warred tagging the additions of Alexikoua, and then you you accused Alexikoua of clear POV-pushing at 00:19 UTC today, while Alexikoua and myself had already added the new citations by 23:23 UTC the previous day, with Alexikoua adding his additional reference at 21:58 UTC the previous day. It seems you did not bother to check if Alexikoua had added additional sources before you accused him of "clear POV-pushing". How hard would it have been if you did your homework before embarking on such AGF-defying accusations? Dr. K. 00:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You edit-warred when you removed the tags before adding sources. Not once have either of you assumed good faith in this discussion, and have been attacking me personally with false accusations of edit warring, suppression of the opposition, and of trying to undermine me by continuously stating that I'm somehow less versed in history than either of you and that my points are somehow less valid. All because you can't convince the consensus to put a date in the infobox. Good to know for future reference that this is how you roll. I'm done here. --Michail (blah) 01:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave you a detailed timeline demonstrating that you accused Alexikoua of POV-pushing, even after he provided the additional citation you asked for. You did not address any of the points I raised by presenting that timeline proving that you blindly accused a fellow editor of "clear POV pushing" without doing your homework ahead of time. Now you double down with irrelevant comments. I'm not surprised. That's par for the course for you, as I've seen previously. At least, in the future, before you attack a fellow editor this way do your homework. Check that timeline! But I'm not holding my breath you'd do that. Dr. K. 01:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this need to be formally closed? The debate has died down and there is a clear 2:1 consensus for removal. --Michail (blah) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures in the article

This reversal is quite frankly ridiculous. What is there to talk about? We have talked about it before, and all that's happened is more images were added - there were 77 and now there are 80 (not including galleries). As of its restored version, it has pictures left and right, disrupting the text, including numerous instances of sandwiching, as well as 3 overhanging images past the last section which push the references down and leave a white gap almost the entire length of my computer screen - and I have a big computer screen. I await to hear exactly how it is proposed this article is fixed, apart from removing images. In the meantime it should be downgraded to 'C' class. --Michail (blah) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No need for this kind of language. There is plenty to talk about, namely, which images should be removed or kept. Of the images you removed, I strongly object to the following removals:

• Treasury of Atreus - A picture of the Mycenaean civilization is absolutely due, as the earliest Hellenic civilization. A way must be found to accommodate this pic and the Minoan pic. Perhaps a dual image?
• Ditto Greek colonization - this is must.
• Ditto Alexander's empire - no-brainer.
• The Royal tombs at Vergina are a UNESCO world heritage site and I would like to include them in the article.
• The Haghia Sophia pic is very much due, as the sole representative of Byzantine architecture.
• Sarakiniko can probably go, as can the second map.
• The Parliament should stay.
• Military hardware should stay, section as has room anyway.
• The Corinth courthouse can go, don't think it add anything.
• Corfu old town should stay.
• The Thessaloniki Science Museum should stay, but the OTE building can go.
• Dialects map can go.
• Interior of Catholic church in Syros can go.
• In the Culture section, I am ok with you removals, except with the removals of the pic of the Rebetes (should stay), and I would also like to keep the soccer and basketball teams (perhaps a double image). On the other hand, the pic of the chariot of Zeus can probably go.
• Also, the pic of the Assumption procession should stay.

Also keep in mind, not everyone has the same monitor as you. If your monitor is very wide, it will create the impression that there are too many pics. However that will not be the case on a monitor with a less extreme aspect ratio. Khirurg (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Was a good cleanup..but that was then .....should drop 50 percent of images and not stack any. Galleries and double images do not work the same for everyone especially in mobile view..... and it is why we have guidelines telling us to use them sparingly. Despite this looking like a kid's picture book I think the biggest problem is missing refs all over.--Moxy (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This. In response to Khirurg, this article is neither a gallery to showcase the history of Greece nor is it indeed an article about the history of Greece that we would need to illustrate in excruciating detail every little bit of important Greek history. If someone wants to read up on Greek history they can do so in the relevant article. Why must there be 2 pictures in the prehistory section? It has 261 words. This is preposterous. One image is enough, and it is my personal opinion that it should be the fresco; the treasury is too tall and pushes everything else down. Equally, why must there be 4 different pictures in the archaic/classical period section, with a word count of 650? The Parthenon and Alexander are perfectly adequate. Same goes for basically the entire article. The point of images on Wikipedia is to illustrate where appropriate, not to illustrate everything. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Even with your suggestions it is contrary to the manual of style. I think it is a case of "which revision better approximates the ideal Wikipedia article? this or this? --Michail (blah) 23:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please calm down. Using words like "preposterous" unnecessarily elevates the temperature of the discussion. Also enumerating your version of understanding of the different policies to experienced editors comes across as condescending and pontificating. Noone here tries to convert this article into a repository of images. Stop these heavy-handed insinuations and try to tone your responses down. This is a wiki and things are done by consensus, not by imposing one's subjective taste on others or by attempting to shame them into submission. Dr. K. 00:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you not tired of assuming my intentions? You did this last summer as well. If you feel or believe that what is said above is done to be "condescending" or to "shame someone to submission" then that is your own understanding of it and those are your own words. It is not personal and neither am I upset as you accuse me of being. This is the last I have to say on the matter. --Michail (blah) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to this; it's wrong on so many levels. If you don't understand that your previous reply came across as angry or heavy-handed, then so be it. I am not going to try to engage on a battle about semantics with you. Dr. K. 00:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Moxy: There is nothing wrong with a cleanup. The problem is choosing which pictures to remove is entirely and utterly subjective. This is why before removing such a large quantity of pictures consensus must be established on the talkpage. Otherwise we depend on the curator's taste or POV, and that can create conflict. Dr. K. 23:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree we should talk things over.....but consensus to remove images that have been placed since last time we talked about the images in September? This is why we have such an image problem.... can be spammed at-will but not removed without a talk. That rant over let's talk about image... first thing I'll advocate for is removing images that are not mentioned in the article in any way. I'll let you guys figure out the images I'll take care of references.--Moxy (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss what needs to be changed after my cleanup. I've got no issue with replacing images from this version with other images. This represents the ideal number of images relative to text in line with the MOS, not that we need to keep those particular images for all eternity. Some of them aren't even that nice, it was just what was on there. My issue is with adding all of them back on. People can't logically expect to have a discussion on all 80 pictures. We did that half a year ago and now there are 3 pictures more than there were in September. --Michail (blah) 00:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) well, wikipedia is a collaborative process and works by consensus. I made an effort to meet you halfway, and I was hoping you would reciprocate. Instead it looks like what I'm getting from you is "my way or the highway". Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's do this in stages. As a first stage, how about Philyboy removes all the pictures he did, except the ones Khirurg objected to. Dr. K. 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There are still issues with it, namely that there are just too many pictures, especially in small sections. The military has 75 words per picture displayed. What is wrong with using the picture of Psara at Operation Enduring Freedom? What does the article gain from having 4 pictures? And to repeat myself from earlier, why must there be 2 pictures in the prehistory section and 4 different pictures in the archaic/classical period section? There obviously isn't the space for them, or they wouldn't sandwich the text between them. --Michail (blah) 00:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So, what's the next step? There is still sandwiching in the history section. It needs 1 image for prehistory, 2 for ancient/classical, and 2 for Hellenistic/Roman to eliminate WP:SANDWICHING. It currently has 2, 4, and 3. I think the treasury, the maps, and the odeon should be removed. --Michail (blah) 20:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg Dr.K. are we going to talk about which ones will be removed, or should I open a request for comment to get the article cleaned up in line with the manual of style? --Michail (blah) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is down to 63 images (for 120 kb of text). Perhaps a couple of more can be removed, but this is no longer a pressing issue. I suggest trying to find a way to accommodate the remaining images (e.g. by using double images). And even featured articles such as Germany have a fair amount of sandwiching and double images. The article has far more pressing issues than a couple of stray images. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention Moxy gave this article a picture-arrangement clean bill of health with an accessibility factor of over 8.0. Dr. K. 00:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know the policies in as much detail about everyone else, is there a policy about images from other websites with website names and URLS still visible in the image? I think it is a bit like using the article to promote the website so maybe this type of image could be removed if everyone agrees that is not what is encyclopedic purpose? SemperDissolubilis (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I fully agree with removing such images. Dr. K. 00:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The image I refer to is solar map in section Greece#Energy

I actually find the solar map encyclopedically useful. Khirurg (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that it is easy to add but difficult to remove. Maybe best next step will be if objecting to Michail's choices then to implement suggestions about dual images and make adjustments based on input so far received. Then it may be easier to get a consensus maybe or everyone continues trying to guess how to fix objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemperDissolubilis (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Photos

The only thing I wanted to say is that the number of photos by 26 February 2019 seems to be a little bit large. At least to me. In my opinion all these photos is something too much for an article concerning a country. Fewer images would do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First unification of Greece under Alexander the Great

It is good to put in the infobox that, before the independence from ottoman empire, Greece was united for first time under Alexander the Great and his hegemony. Vasiagrgr (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That topic was discussed to death some months ago. The answer is: no, it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Maritime borders"

Twice now [4][5], User:Thenabster126 has inserted claims about Greece sharing "maritime borders" with countries such as Italy, Libya or Cyprus. It doesn't. The only meaningful concept of "maritime boundaries" is boundaries of territorial waters, and Greece doesn't share such boundaries with any other country except Albania and Turkey. The only boundaries it has with other countries further afield are those of Exclusive economic zones or Continental shelf zones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This article (List of countries and territories by land and maritime borders) states that it shares maritime borders with other countries. You would have to do the same with other pages for countries where it mentions maritime borders. What do you mean by boundaries? It shares borders with more than just those 2.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources. If editors at that other article have made the decision to include borders of exclusive economic zones etc, that's up to that article's talkpage to discuss. Here, we desceribe only those boundaries that concern areas of actual national sovereignty, and that means land territories and territorial waters, and the territorial waters of Greece border only on those of Turkey and Albania. Other zones are of such minor significance they don't belong in the lead of the article, if anywhere at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope that definition is cleared up for Maritime borders.Thenabster126 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The main chart / table on the right is consciously erroneous on religion

• Religion: majority: Eastern Orthodoxy (official), minority: Islam, Catholicism, Irreligion, Atheism, Others

Irreligion is: religious indifference, agnosticism and atheism

Atheism is to deny that personhood can occur without an environment (god before creation), that it's more fundamental than the Universe; and that it can be cosmogenous (the person-god supposedly created the Universe).

• Don't mix the wider non-theism with explicit conscious atheism. Some people claim that all religions fight against the generic irreligion and vice versa. That's wrong. We don't focus on forging gerrymandering majorities. If you believe that theists fight against non-theists merge also all religions as one; it's unfair to merge only all nontheists as one (you haven't done it, but Greeks merge all non theists as one, but they don't statistically merge all religions as religion without specific details). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:F800:F438:E7DC:ABB6:BA1 (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Greece's Area in square kilometers

According to recent official data of the European Commission (2015), the area of Greece is 132,049 sq kms

Sources of information: - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/factsheets/pdf/el_en.pdf - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-indicators/context/2017/full-text_en.pdf - https://kundoc.com/pdf-geographies-of-crisis-in-greece-a-social-well-being-approach-.html - https://docplayer.net/102295236-Production-guide-greece.html (Hellenic Film Production)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.12.151 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a difference of less than 100 km2 from the figure we quote from the CIA Handbook, 131,957 km2. No idea by what criterion we would prefer either of the two figures. The difference might well be due to trivial measurement differences such as different ways of calculating shorelines etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious phrasing in Demographics/Migration

The term "illegal immigrants" is used to describe refugees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.0.15 (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputation over Greece being part of the balkan peninsula

It states in the article that Greece is a part of the Balkans, although this is disputed be Geographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinan Blueje (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Third Hellenic Republic

Why is this page a separate page from Third Hellenic Republic? Idiacanthus 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Yorgos Lanthimos in the Cinema section

I see no logical reason why there is no mention of the work of Yorgos Lanthimos in the brief summary of Greek Cinema. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we get you to add some sources for your additions or they may get deleted again.--Moxy 🍁 22:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

συνταγματική ονομασία

Η Ελλάδα (στην καθαρεύουσα Ελλάς), με επίσημη συνταγματική ονομασία Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, είναι χώρα της νοτιοανατολικής Ευρώπης στο νοτιότερο άκρο της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου. Συνορεύει στα βορειοδυτικά με την Αλβανία, στα βόρεια με τη Βόρεια Μακεδονία και τη Βουλγαρία και στα βορειοανατολικά με την Τουρκία. Έχει ακτές στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και βρέχεται ανατολικά από το Αιγαίο, δυτικά από το Ιόνιο και νότια από το Λιβυκό. Η Ελλάδα κατέχει την 11η θέση στις χώρες με τη μεγαλύτερη ακτογραμμή στα 13.676 χιλιόμετρα, καθώς έχει πλήθος νησιών που υπολογίζεται, αναλόγως τα κριτήρια, στα 2.500 με τα 165 έως 227 να είναι κατοικήσιμα. Βρίσκεται στην 97η θέση στην κατάταξη των χωρών του κόσμου σύμφωνα με την έκτασή τους. Ο πληθυσμός της χώρας την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2017 εκτιμήθηκε ότι ήταν 10.757.300, σύμφωνα με τις επίσημες εκτιμήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Στατιστικής Υπηρεσίας.[6] Η πρωτεύουσα της, και συγχρόνως η μεγαλύτερη πόλη της, είναι η Αθήνα. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uavmete (talk • contribs) 07:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The above is the lead from the Greece article at the Greek wiki. User advised at User talk:Uavmete#September 2019. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Image Selection

I find the selection of some of the images representing some section at least unthoughtful. For example how could Greek cuisine be represented by am exterior view of a a taverna building and not a dish. Also Mikis Theodorakis picture should represent him at the height of his music career not at his later age. Finally a better opinion of the Byzantine Era and its art could be made with the picture of the mosaics at the dome of Hagia Sophia church rather than again an exterior view of the building with its surrounding modern area. –AlbusTheWhite (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of the pictures you are edit-warring over are of dubious value and quality. All of your arguments are subjective. I can just as easily say that a picture of feta cheese is not representative of Greek cuisine. Khirurg (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes you could say that but notheless it is a representation comparing it to a picture of a building (because we all know that there is no better way to represent a food culture with concrete and construction materials. Feta is a worldwide renowned cheese almost synonym with the Greek cuisine. So according to my "poor" judgement there is no better way to REPRESENT BRIEFLY the culinary traddition of Greece than a picture of feta cheese served alongside some local olives. In addition to that I see no point as I have already mentioned of representing the medieval history of Greece with the vastly changed since then exterior view of Hagia Sophia alongside modern block of flats. The detailed mosaics of its dome represent very well a tradition characteristic of its era and presents the reader with a view that the Byzantine Greeks themselves probably were much acquainted. Finally the images of Euro 2004 and the 2008 basketball team do not represent at all the current state of Greek sports and i encourage their removal and the addition of an image of Stephanos Tsitsipas or Giannis Antetokoumpo. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2004 soccer team and 2008 basketball team are the only ones that ever won anything, so no, we are not going to replace them. Feta is far from unique to Greece btw. So no on that too. Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not the one who decides what happens that is very authoritarian. Also if you say that Feta is not unique you have to inform the international regulations that recognize Feta as a traditional Greek product and neglect that feta has been a protected designation of origin. Also notice the other examples I have mentioned with actual reasons such as the dome of Hagia Sophia. Finally the victories of those teams are dated and the fact that they have won something does not translate in an ever-lasting representation of their country. Antetokoumpo and Tsitsipas are great exampes of Contemporary Greek Athleticism, I suggest that there is also a mention of Petrounias and Stefanidi somewhere in that section AlbusTheWhite (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you for the 4th time pls review WP:Imagesize pls stop adding fixed size.--Moxy 🍁 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't know what I would do without your help. Thank you. Dr. K. 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest an update as far as the images are concerned, here I mention some pictures already used in the article and the ones that could replace them:

-Vathia Mani Greece.jpg → Bathia's Towers.jpg

-Entrance_to_the_treasure_of_Atreus.jpg → Mykene BW 2017-10-10 12-19-49.jpg

-Храм Святой Софии - panoramio (1).jpg → Hosios Loukas BW 2017-10-08 14-45-40 stitch.jpg (Hosios Loukas is a more noteworthy exmple of Byzantine architecture in the Greek peninsula)

-Mikis2004.jpg → Griekse componinst Mikis Theodorakis in Nederland, Theodorakis dirigeert, Bestanddeelnr 925-3322.jpg (the quality of the image is horrendous and Theodorakis represented in his most productive age is a better choice)

Also I suggest the removal of Angelokastro and an addition of an image of Rigas Feraios AlbusTheWhite (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you find a better pastime than trying to rearrange the pictures of this article. If you persist, I will seek a topic ban for you from editing pictures into Greece-related articles, including this article. Dr. K. 01:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You realy sound like you are in a way threatening me. I am just expressing my opinion on the change of some of the images in the article. There is nothing wrong with that. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for an update of the images of the article

Greetings everybody, so I am just restating my previous proposal for an update of some dated and repetitve pictures (some are low quality others are simply not the best way to represent the text that accompanies them). I believe that the images of Angelokastro and Agia Sofia in Thessaloniki are the most striking examples. Because Angelokastro's role in Greek history although important it is basically regional and does not correspond to what was happenng in the Greek peninsula as a whole during that area and as far as Agia Sofia is concerned I beleieve taht the main reason that this picture was chosen was a cheap substitute to Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, however, the main problem is the alterations that it received during the Ottoman era so it is not the best example of Byzantine architecture in Greece in comparison to Hosios Loukas who remains largely intact since the age of its construction. I understand that I might come out as irritating to some and for that I am sorry but I believe that this issue deserves at least a discussion and not a snub without a second thought. Finally I am also sorry to those that I somehow might offend with this (I seriously do not understand the reasons). And lastly I suggest a section that references the Biodiversity of Greece like other similar articles in the site.

-Vathia Mani Greece.jpg → Bathia's Towers.jpg

-Entrance_to_the_treasure_of_Atreus.jpg → Mykene BW 2017-10-10 12-19-49.jpg

-Храм Святой Софии - panoramio (1).jpg → Hosios Loukas BW 2017-10-08 14-45-40 stitch.jpg (Hosios Loukas is a more noteworthy exmple of Byzantine architecture in the Greek peninsula)

-Mikis2004.jpg → Griekse componinst Mikis Theodorakis in Nederland, Theodorakis dirigeert, Bestanddeelnr 925-3322.jpg (the quality of the image is horrendous and Theodorakis represented in his most productive age is a better choice)

AlbusTheWhite (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Territorial evolution

I suppose that the image depicting 'the territorial evolution of the Kingdom of Greece from 1832 to 1947' is full of inaccuracies.

No, not really. --Michail (blah) 20:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox clutter

It'd be better if all the unnecessary Greek-to-English transliterations were removed. The infobox should deliver clear, useful and comprehensive information. --91.140.88.224 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

سةضو

صةيأإوضاتعغثلنرزةسووىيصظعئؤصيشررذخجحئ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.131.176.5 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Griekenland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Griekenland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"History of North Greece" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of North Greece. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Larissaview.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence and native names

I understand that we don't want lead sentence bloat, but readers expect to see the common native name, plus a transliteration and pronunciation directly after the English name of a country. Obviously Greece has several names which should be discussed, but I think at least Ελλάδα needs to be in the lead sentence. If not visible outright, then using footnote templates. C.f. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.@Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Julia ☺ 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to talk. What I particularly disliked about your previous version was the footnote on "Hellas" (a name that is only introduced in the lead sentence as a variant English name, but then the footnote was talking about it having to do with Katharevousa, which must be quite confusing and misleading to outside readers.) But I do agree that the term "Ελλάδα" has a better claim to being in the lead sentence than the "Ελλάς" after "Hellas". I don't know why it was moved there. Would you be okay with going back to a version similar to this old one: [6]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: That's much better IMO, especially with the historical qualifier for Hellas, thanks. I still would like translit/IPA after Ελλάδα but I'll defer to your judgement. Julia ☺ 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with @Julia: that romanization and IPA should be present at the head of this article (and all nation articles as a standard), this seems particularly important in instances, like this one, where the nation's native name is written in a non-Latin script. When it comes to short vs. official names, I'm personally a fan of the Russia form of footnoting the official name's romanization and IPA. As this seems like an uncontroversial format in nation articles across wiki, and given that this discussion has gone dark for a couple of months, I'm going to go ahead and make this change, and we can talk about it if there are disagreements. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Greece (Greek: Ελλάδα, Ellada, [eˈlaða])" is still too much for my taste. We should be able to write a lead sentence that is readable text, not a jumble of annotations on notes on parentheticals. Simplicity rules. Details are for further down. There is no worse sin on Wikipedia than pedantry. We also shouldn't burden the lead sentence with double footnotes and multiple different sets of footnotes on the same word. Horribly non-reader-friendly. In fact, I don't see why we'd need any footnote on "Hellenic Republic", per WP:LEADCITE. We also don't need additional Greek glosses on "Hellas" (if we need "Hellas" in the first place). As I said above, the only reason it's in the lead sentence is to introduce it as an alternate English name; its relation to the Greek forms is of little relevance at that point, and too complex to handle in such a note. What we do need, however, is the clarification that "Hellas" is an historic/dated term; why did you remove the "historically known as"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for killing 'Hellas' in the lead sentence if you'd like, as well as removing the citation on 'Hellenic Republic', but it seems rather extreme to remove the native name, romanization, and pronunciation of a Foreign name in a non-Latin script. What would you do instead? –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Add European demonym

demonym =

• Member state
• European

AzaanDeen (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No. That's not what a demonym is. The word "European" doesn't mean "inhabitant of Greece". It means "inhabitant of Europe". Hence it is the demonym of "Europe", not of "Greece". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

"due the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" → "due to the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions" 80.3.103.8 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done - thank you! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Images of monuments outside of Greece

With respect to wikipedia article convention, I think it is clear that images must be located within the boundaries of the country that the article is about. Clearly the image of the Alexander the Great mosaic in the 'Archaic and Classical' period subsection is outside of Greece (located in Pompeii, Italy). I recommend dropping it for consistency sake and to avoid confusion. Kromid (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see why. This image isn't illustrating "monuments" of Greece; it's illustrating the passage about Alexander the Great, and that mosaic just happens to be one of the most authentic and best-known images of that person. It's pretty immaterial where exactly it is located. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Ancient greece used cars to make egyptain pryamids Waffle1212 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I realize this is trolling, but I'm still going to say: please provide a reliable source to support this proposed change. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Update economy figures

I have noticed the GDP figures are outdated based on the latest IMF data released on the same source cited within the article (namely https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=174,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2018&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.142.30 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)